‘They’re Not At The Gate Anymore’: Michael Steele Issues Most Chilling Trump Warning
Lee Moran – February 17, 2025
Both sides of the aisle drew fierce condemnation from former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele, who accused both the GOP and Democrats of failing to stand up to Donald Trump’s second administration.
On MSNBC’s “The Weekend,” Steele’s co-host, Symone Sanders-Townsend, asked him, “What would you have us do?”
“I would like you to show that you give a damn,” Steele replied to his colleague, a one-time adviser to former Vice President Kamala Harris.
“That you got a little emotion about the fact that people are losing their jobs indiscriminately,” he continued.
Steele then noted that Trump has given “absolute power” to billionaire Elon Musk — whose unofficial Department of Government Efficiency is slashing public spending and attempting to cull the positions of thousands of federal workers — before continuing to speak to Sanders-Townsend’s question.
“So, I’d just like to see somebody wake the hell up and get excited about the fact that your country is under assault,” he said. “They’re not at the gate anymore, they’re in your bedrooms, they’re in your living rooms, they’re in your businesses, they got your data, dumbass, they got all your stuff.”
Co-host Alicia Menendez suggested Republicans are equally to blame.
“The hell with Republicans,” Steele replied. “They’re not going to do anything, they’re the problem.”
Elsewhere on this weekend’s broadcast of Steele’s show, the co-host accused Trump and his MAGA allies of trying to destroy U.S. democracy and the Constitution via what he called the “fake agency” of DOGE.
Warnock at National Cathedral: ‘Don’t tell me you reject DEI when you live in a White House built by Black hands’
Cheyanne M. Daniels – February 17, 2025
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) is issuing a sharp rebuke of President Trump’s flurry of executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) since his inauguration.
Speaking at the National Cathedral’s Holy Eucharist and Annual HBCU Welcome Sunday, Warnock said many of the president’s orders are a “wholesale unabashed assault” on DEI.
“Don’t tell me you reject DEI when you live in a White House built by Black hands,” said Warnock, a Baptist preacher. “The White House is a DEI house built by slaves who worked without the benefit of compensation.”
Just days after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to end “illegal preferences and discrimination” in government and help find ways to “encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.”
Multiple federal agencies are purging their staffs of DEI-related positions, and major companies including McDonald’s, Target, Walmart, Amazon and Tractor Supply have all ended or rolled back their DEI programs, many made in the wake of the murder of George Floyd.
Trump and his supporters have falsely claimed DEI policies and programs discriminate against white candidates.
“Diversity is sometimes offensive. It makes you uncomfortable because when you are accustomed to privilege diversity might feel like oppression,” Warnock said.
The Georgia senator also addressed the president’s allegations that DEI was to blame for the deadly airplane crashes that happened just weeks into his second term.
“While dozens of bodies were still beneath the chilly waters of the Potomac, he was busy playing a sad and awful game,” Warnock said Sunday.
“I know a God who creates talent and genius and brilliance all over the town on all sides of the track in every area code in every Zip code,” Warnock concluded. “It takes all of us to fly, and if we won’t rely on all of us we’ll find that we’re stuck on the ground. I don’t know about you but I want to fly higher. I want all that God has imagined for America.”
Budde had implored Trump to have “mercy” for those who were scared for his second term, including members of the LGBTQ community, immigrants and people of color.
“The so-called Bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a Radical Left hard line Trump hater. She brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way. She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart,” Trump said on social media after the service.
“She and her church owe the public an apology!” he added.
Warnock commended Budde for her “powerful and prophetic voice” that “speaks truth to power and addresses the fear and the anxiety that so many are feeling right now.”
“In the midst of the dark clouds, she had the courage to stand in the best of our tradition and speak the truth, and I submit to you that she need not apologize to anybody,” Warnock said to applause.
“When the prophet speaks the prophet doesn’t apologize. Those who hear are called to repent.”
Elon Musk ridiculed a blind person on X. Then a mob went to work.
Pranshu Verma – February 17, 2025
A portrait picture of Elon Musk photographed in Krakow, Poland on January 22nd, 2024 and X, former Twitter, logo are screened for illustration photo in Krakow, Poland on October 25, 2024. (Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images)More
Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette works at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group focused on reducing bureaucratic waste. He also happens to be blind. So when he criticized Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service in testimony on Capitol Hill last week, Musk unleashed an online attack Hedtler-Gaudette described as “surreal” in its juvenile bigotry.
First, Musk retweeted a post on X noting that the “blind director of watchdog group funded by George Soros testifies that he does not see widespread evidence of government waste” and added two laughing/crying emojis. The tweet garnered more than 21 million views, and sparked dozens of hateful messages to Hedtler-Gaudette’s account.
“He couldn’t see s— … perfect excuse for being unable to perform your job,” one poster said. “The dei blind guy can’t see fraud. U can’t make up this garbage,” another wrote. One person even called for posters to surface Hedtler-Gaudette’s bank account.
The episode illustrates how Musk’s unparalleled online reach has given him a powerful tool to attack individuals who criticize DOGE, with one post able to spark hundreds of blistering responses from his followers.
Last week, he amplified baseless claims about the judge who overturned Trump’s funding freeze on federal grants that named his government employee daughter. Musk has called for the dismissal of journalists who have written about DOGE, calling their actions “possibly criminal.” As he hunts for places to slash the federal bureaucracy, the billionaire has reposted the names and titles of individual government employees, insinuating they should be fired.
Digital rights experts say the situation has created an unprecedented imbalance in power. Musk’s massive online following, his ownership of a social media platform where he can dictate content moderation rules, and his position heading a government entity with access to private data, give him a unique ability to threaten those who question him and chill dissenting speech.
“People do not feel safe speaking out in this country against the government,” said Ryan Calo, a law professor at the University of Washington. “Because the government in the form of Elon Musk and President Trump himself will catalyze retribution.”
Hedtler-Gaudette said that Musk’s decision to ridicule a blind, 38-year-old government waste expert exhibits something different: “He’s a fundamentally small person,” Hedtler-Gaudette said in an interview with The Washington Post.
Musk did not return a request for comment.
Long before Musk owned X, he used his personal account to name and shame individuals. In 2018, when journalist Erin Biba wrote that Musk attacked scientists and reporters, the billionaire quipped that he has “never attacked science. Definitely attacked misleading journalism like yours tho.” The single remark triggered a torrent of emails, tweets and Instagram posts, Biba wrote, from what she called the “MuskBros,” many with sexually offensive remarks.
After Musk purchased Twitter in 2022 and renamed it X, the site transformed. The billionaire cut the bulk of X’s trust and safety team and replaced professional fact-checking with crowdsourced “Community Notes.” As Musk’s account has swelled to 217 million followers, he has the loudest online megaphone in U.S. politics – a megaphone further amplified by algorithms tuned to prioritize his content in people’s feeds, said Joan Donovan, assistant professor of journalism at Boston University.
Musk’s posts serve as “merely a trigger mechanism” to his followers, Donovan said, often prompting them to scour social media profiles, look up information about a target’s family members, launch cyberattacks, lodge fake complaints with their employer, or flood people with texts and phone calls throughout the night.
Shortly after taking over the site, Musk falsely posted that Yoel Roth, the site’s former head of trust and safety, was “in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services.” Some interpreted the comment to mean Roth was a pedophile, prompting a wave of antisemitic and homophobic harassment that ultimately forced him to move out of his home, according to Roth’s congressional testimony.
Following Trump’s reelection, Musk has often focused on people who fit narratives popular with the president’s nationalist base.
In November, Musk retweeted a post identifying Ashley Thomas, a director of climate diversification at the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, questioning if taxpayers should fund her salary. “So many fake jobs,” Musk said in a tweet response, garnering more than 33 million views. His post inspired a barrage of abuse and calls for Thomas’s dismissal. “Fire her day 1,” one poster said.
When wildfires ensnared Los Angeles in January, Musk blamed minority and female firefighters for not stopping the flames sooner, posting their names and photographs. “DEI means people DIE,” Musk tweeted during the natural disaster.
After Wall Street Journal reporter Katherine Long revealed Marko Elez, one of Musk’s DOGE staffers, had made racist comments online – prompting Elez to resign – the billionaire called her “a disgusting and cruel person” and suggested she should be “fired immediately.” Ashok Sinha, a spokesperson for the Wall Street Journal, said in a statement that “we stand by our reporter and our fair and accurate reporting.”
Musk’s attacks carry a new power since Trump has taken office, Calo said. Musk is a special government employee, and his DOGE team has access to sensitive private data. As the owner of X, he can choose what content is allowed.
The combination, Calo said, gives him the unique ability to discourage the people he attacks from posting on social media. Calo argues the process is a form of jawboning, when government actors use their authority to influence content on social media accounts.
“Now, you have a literal White House-appointed official who is on his own media platform and bullying people and threatening people,” Calo said. “If that isn’t jawboning, I literally can’t imagine what that term might mean.”
Musk’s actions online may ultimately reduce the criticism he gets in the future, said Gita Johar, a Columbia University business school professor who specializes in consumer psychology. “People just anticipate being attacked, and don’t take on positions that could make you the target of online bullying,” Johar said.
While Hedtler-Gaudette has yet to face physical harm because of Musk’s post, he said he does worry about the future.
“There is a power to what happens on the internet,” he said. “As much as I like to dismiss it sometimes and laugh at it, it does have real consequences sometimes.”
Trump administration fires thousands for ‘performance’ without evidence, in messy rush
Hannah Natanson, Lisa Rein and Emily Davies – February 17, 2025
Trump administration fires thousands for ‘performance’ without evidence, in messy rush
The first message from her manager on Saturday afternoon misspelled Amanda Mae Downey’s name. The second mentioned “the news” about probationary federal workers, and how the Trump administration planned to fire them.
When Downey called her boss at a Michigan branch of the U.S. Forest Service for an explanation, she learned her name was on a firing list. She would have to come into the office to sign a letter formalizing her termination. And she had to do it before the holiday weekend was over.
“I’m glad that our agency at least has decided we can do it in person,” her manager said, according to a recording Downey provided to The Washington Post. “So we can add a little human touch to what’s going on.”
Many federal government employees were dismissed over the holiday weekend as managers confronted a Trump administration demand to fire workers by Tuesday. In group texts and in online forums, they dubbed the error-ridden run of firings the “St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.”
The firings targeted new hires on probation, who have fewer protections than permanent employees, and swept up people with years of service who had recently transferred between agencies, as well as military veterans and people with disabilities employed through a program that sped their hiring but put them on two years’ probation. Most probationary employees have limited rights to appeal dismissals, but union heads have vowed to challenge the mass firings in court. The largest union representing federal workers has also indicated it plans to fight the terminations and pursue legal action.
Critics warned of swift consequences as the administration raced to execute a vision Trump and billionaire Elon Musk have touted for a leaner, reshaped government. The latest wave of personnel actions already prompted an administrative complaint on behalf of workers at nine agencies, adding to more than a dozen legal tests of Trump’s power filed one month into his term.
The Trump administration will not disclose how many workers it cut since last week ahead of its Tuesday deadline, but the government employed more than 200,000 probationary workers as of last year. The firings have extended to touch employees at almost every agency, including map makers, archaeologists and cancer researchers, The Post found, in choices that some workers said contradicted a U.S. Office of Personnel Management directive to retain “mission-critical” workers.
This account of how the Trump administration’s firing spree played out over the weekend, sowing pain and chaos, is based on interviews and messages with more than 275 federal workers, as well as dozens of government records and communications reviewed by The Post.
The Federal Aviation Administration let go hundreds of technicians and engineers just weeks after a midair collision miles from the White House killed 67 people, eliciting promises from Trump officials to improve air safety, workers said in interviews. FEMA, which handles the nation’s natural disasters, is preparing to fire hundreds of probationary employees, according to four people familiar with the situation who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. The agency is already stretched thin responding to fires in California and floods in Kentucky. And the administration terminated scores of employees who work to bolster America’s nuclear defense, only to realize its error and start reversing the firings.
“I’d understand a strategic reduction in force if needed,” said one USDA employee, who was fired over the weekend. “But this was a butchering of some of our best. Does the public know this?”
The termination letters hitting inboxes all struck the same note: Probationary workers were getting the ax for poor job performance. But many of those fired had just received positive reviews, or had not worked in the government long enough to receive even a single rating, according to interviews with federal employees and documents obtained by The Post.
Internal communications from the Office of Personnel Management obtained by The Post appeared to tie the performance directive to Trump’s plans. In a message sent Friday to agencies, an OPM employee wrote that, because of Trump’s mandated hiring freeze, probationary employees “had no right to continued employment. … An employee’s performance must be viewed through the current needs and best interest of the government, [in] light of the President’s directive to dramatically reduce the size of the federal workforce.” OPM also provided a form email agencies could use to terminate workers, citing “performance.”
Firing employees en masse with the same claim of poor performance is illegal, said Jim Eisenmann, a partner at the Alden Law Group, a law firm specializing in litigation by federal employees. It violates federal law covering career civil service employees, he said.
“It can’t be true,” Eisenmann said. “They’re clearly not articulating this on an individual basis, which is what makes it so suspect.”
The White House referred questions about the firings to individual agencies and OPM. An OPM spokeswoman reiterated what the agency has previously said about the terminations: “The probationary period is a continuation of the job application process, not an entitlement for permanent employment.”
Musk, whose U.S. DOGE Service is leading the drive to downsize government, over the weekend shared triumphant messages on X, the social media platform he owns. Close to 2 a.m. Monday, he reposted a picture of himself in a gladiator outfit and declared he was destroying “the woke mind virus.”
A few hours after the post, Downey, the U.S. Forest Service employee, climbed into her car. She drove a half-hour to her office and signed her name to a letter putting an end to the income she relies on to support three children, an ailing mother and a husband who just lost his own job.
Before she walked out, she jotted five words above her signature: “Received and accepted under duress.”
Mistakes, miscommunication and confusion
The firings started Thursday, by email and on video calls, after the Trump administration held calls with agency heads ordering them to terminate most probationary and temporary employees. The dismissals picked up pace into the weekend, hitting thousands more at the Interior Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Energy Department.
Some employees said the proceedings seemed rushed, the details botched. Termination letters at Education listed the wrong job, or the wrong start date. A legal help number offered in a notice sent to a Small Business Administration employee led to the voicemail for an apartment building, not a lawyer. Some firing letters seemed copy-pasted from a form and left out the name of the agency where employees worked.
The Friday email to agencies from OPM only caused more confusion. The email at first directed agencies to finish all their firings by close of business Monday, a federal holiday. Agency leaders were supposed to send a spreadsheet listing all their terminated probationary employees to OPM chief of staff Amanda Scales by 8 p.m. that day, the email said. OPM later adjusted the deadline.
The “tracker” should include “which probationary employees have been terminated and which you plan to keep,” the email said. “For those you plan to keep, provide an explanation of why.”
OPM also offered a template notice agencies could send to fired workers. It read in part: “The Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest.” Federal law gives agencies wide latitude to fire probationary workers so long as they provide written notice “as to why he is being separated [and] the agency’s conclusions as to the inadequacies of his performance or conduct.”
The Alden Law Group and Democracy Forward, a legal group that has challenged several Trump policies dating back to his first term, filed a complaint on behalf of fired probationary employees.
U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan is weighing a request from a group of states to block Musk’s team from accessing sensitive data and ousting employees from seven federal agencies. In a hearing Monday, she signaled that she may reject the complaint, saying that DOGE appeared to be moving unpredictably but that the plaintiffs had not pointed to enough evidence of irreparable harm to justify an immediate ban on its activities.
Government personnel rules state that newly hired career employees serve probationary terms of one to two years, with attorneys and others who do specialized work falling in the lengthier category. Others, including scientists, can be hired for limited terms of one to four years, depending on the agency and role. Some of these have now been let go, federal workers said in interviews. Others who served at one agency but transferred to another job elsewhere in the government in interviews reported being dismissed, since the probation clock starts anew with a new agency.
In one division within the National Institutes of Health (NIH), firing emails began to go out Friday morning without supervisors’ knowledge, prompting a division director to call an all-hands meeting that afternoon. There, the director said all probationary workers were being terminated, according to a probationary employee.
There were two mistakes on the list of probationary people, the director noted, which leadership was working to fix. The NIH employee hoped she was one of the “mistakes.” She waited, anxiety building, until Saturday at 6 p.m., when she got her answer – in the form of an email stating her “ability, knowledge and skills” no longer “fit the Agency’s needs.”
Directors at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, known as CMS, were told Friday to reassure their probationary workers they would not be targeted, said a manager there. Then on Friday afternoon, probationary workers began to be “deactivated” in CMS systems, losing their access and user profiles with no notice. The letters started coming in a trickle at noon the next day – then a flood, the manager said. By Saturday evening, it was clear: All had been cut.
Americans have long held an appetite for government reform, but the breakneck pace of change could imperil public services, said Donald Kettl, a professor emeritus at the University of Maryland who specializes in the civil service.
“If there’s any one thing that anyone on government’s inside would quietly agree about, it’s that the current civil service is badly broken and that the system is full of wasteful bloat,” Kettl said. “But a clumsy fix is worse than no fix at all. It’s like going to a meat market, getting a piece of steak, and trying to cut out the fat with a sledgehammer. That would only make a mess of the meat.”
‘Above fully successful,’ fired for performance
One Transportation Department worker found out he was fired on Valentine’s Day just after putting his children to bed, as he sat down to watch a movie with his wife. An Agriculture employee discovered he was terminated the morning after attending an ex-partner’s funeral. A Natural Resource Conservation Service employee was cut months after the government paid $20,000 to relocate his family North Dakota.
Others targeted in the wave of firings fixated on the emails explaining why, struggling to understand.
Employees who were told their performance was at issue said they had earned evaluations, reviewed by The Post, that offered evidence of their good work.
“Above fully successful,” read a November assessment of a fired General Services Administration worker.
“An outstanding year, consistently exceeding expectations,” stated a review for a former NIH employee, whose manager credited her for “mastering a steep learning curve and becoming an invaluable asset.”
One well-rated Veterans Affairs staffer texted her boss to complain after she was fired. In text messages obtained by The Post, he replied: “It states it’s due to your performance which is not true. … Your performance has nothing to do with this.”
Others were stunned to find themselves included in the probationary category, including a federal nurse with more than five years of government employment who recently moved under military orders with her spouse – and had to switch agencies as a result. Now she’s out of a job.
A veteran of the National Park Service, who had worked parks including Yosemite, Shenandoah and the Great Smoky Mountains, last year left a permanent position to accept a promotion in a new park. There, she was told she’d have to serve one year of probation. On Valentine’s Day, she was fired for “performance,” ending a quarter-century of service.
“It is very brutal,” she said. “Especially after working and dedicating most of my life to the NPS.”
Some lamented that they had hoped to forge careers in federal service but won’t get the chance.
Luke Graziani, a disabled Army veteran, was five weeks from completing his probation year on Friday, when he logged into his work computer at the Bronx Veterans Affairs hospital.
Waiting on the screen was a boilerplate termination email citing performance concerns. Graziani printed out the message and took it to his boss, who was shocked – and promised to submit a request for exemption.
“You’re critical staff,” Graziani recalled his boss saying. “We’re going to try.”
Graziani, who is 45 and has four children, had believed until this weekend that his veteran status would protect his job. He served 20 years in the Army, first as a supply specialist and then in public affairs, deploying for two tours in Iraq and another two in Afghanistan before retiring in 2023.
In the hours after his termination, Graziani tried to figure out what to do. Then he thought of Douglas A. Collins, the newly appointed veterans affairs secretary, who vowed in his confirmation hearing that “we will not stop until we succeed on behalf of the men and women who have worn the uniform.”
Graziani sat down and composed a letter.
“You see, I am a Veteran too. Just like you, Sec. Collins, I spent those same hot nights in Iraq, waiting for the all-clear after an incoming round set off the alert system, praying that there wouldn’t be another,” he wrote.
Then he asked for his job back: “This can’t be how my service to my country ends.”
As of Monday, Collins had not replied.
Derek Hawkins and Brianna Sacks contributed to this report.
President Donald Trump Wants to Change Social Security, but It Comes With a Potentially Big Cost to Retirees
Sean Williams – February 8, 2025
When 2025 began, nearly 52 million retired workers were bringing home an average monthly check of $1,975.34 from Social Security. Though this might sound like a modest amount of income, it’s often a necessity to help aging Americans make ends meet.
For 23 years, national pollster Gallup has conducted an annual survey to gauge the reliance of retirees on their monthly Social Security check. Without fail, all 23 years showed that 80% to 90% of respondents (including 88% in 2024) required their Social Security benefit, in some capacity, to cover their expenses.
While maintaining the health of Social Security should be a priority for elected officials, the reality is that the foundation of America’s leading retirement program has been weakening for 40 years. Current and future beneficiaries are counting on lawmakers — including President Donald Trump — to strengthen the program.
President Trump signing paperwork in the Oval Office. Image source: Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead, courtesy of the National Archives.
Sweeping benefit cuts are an estimated eight years away
Before digging into what President Trump has proposed be done with America’s leading retirement program, it’s important to understand the dynamics of how we got to where we are now.
In each of the last 85 years, the Social Security Board of Trustees has released a report that details every dollar in income the program brings in, as well as where those dollars end up. More importantly, the Trustees Report examines the future solvency of Social Security’s trust funds by taking into account changes to fiscal and monetary policy, as well as myriad demographic shifts.
Since 1985, the Trustees Report has projected a long-term funding obligation shortfall. In this sense, “long-term” refers to the 75-year period following the release of a Trustees Report. This means estimated income collected over 75 years, inclusive of cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), won’t fully cover outlays, such as benefits and, to a far lesser extent, administrative expenses to run the Social Security program.
As of 2024, Social Security’s long-term funding obligation shortfall was $23.2 trillion, which is up $800 billion from the prior-year report.
The bigger worry is that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI) is forecast to exhaust its asset reserves by 2033. Although the OASI is no danger of bankruptcy or insolvency, the existing payout schedule, including COLAs, for retired workers and survivor beneficiaries is at risk beyond 2033.
If the OASI’s asset reserves are fully depleted, the Trustees estimate sweeping benefit cuts of 21% will be needed for the OASI to sustain payouts through 2098, without the need for any further reductions.
The blame for Social Security’s weakening financial outlook has absolutely nothing to do with myths of Congressional theft or undocumented migrants receiving traditional benefits. Rather, it’s a function of ongoing demographic shifts, such as a historically low U.S. birth rate, a more than halving in legal net migration into the U.S., and rising income inequality.
President Trump wants to change Social Security
The unwritten rule of thumb on Capitol Hill is to avoid the proverbial third rail of politics, Social Security. Even though most lawmakers recognize that America’s top social program is ailing, making changes would almost certainly result in select groups of people being worse off than they were before.
However, presidential candidates don’t have the luxury of taking no stance on key issues. While Trump has predominantly taken a hands-off approach with Social Security, he did allude to a big change he’d like to see made in late July.
In a post on the president’s social media platform Truth Social, then-candidate Trump wrote, “Seniors should not pay tax on Social Security.” He reiterated this stance roughly a week later in a Fox & Friends interview.
The taxation of Social Security benefits began four decades ago. With the program’s asset reserves nearly depleted in 1983, a bipartisan Congress passed and then-President Ronald Reagan signed the Social Security Amendments of 1983 into law. This sweeping overhaul gradually increased the payroll tax and full retirement age for workers, and introduced the now-despised tax on benefits.
Starting in 1984, up to 50% of Social Security benefits became taxable at the federal rate if provisional income (adjusted gross income + tax-free interest + one-half of benefits) crested $25,000 for single filers and $32,000 for jointly filing couples. In 1993, a second tier was added that exposed up to 85% of benefits to federal taxation if provisional income topped $34,000 for a single filer or $44,000 for couples filing jointly.
The reason the taxation of Social Security benefits is such a sore spot — and why the president has attempted to capitalize on the popularity of removing it — is because these income thresholds have never been adjusted for inflation. When the initial tax tier was introduced more than 40 years ago, it was only expected to impact around 10% of senior households. But after four decades of higher nominal wages and cost-of-living adjustments, around half of all retiree households are subjected to this tax.
Ending the taxation of benefits would be met with big smiles from retirees, but would also come with a flurry of unintended consequences.
Image source: Getty Images.
Ending the tax on Social Security benefits would do more harm than good
The advantage of removing the taxation of Social Security benefits is simple: It would allow around half of all retired-worker beneficiaries to keep more of what they receive. But this shortsighted action has potentially serious long-term consequences that could cost retirees big-time.
In 2023, Social Security brought in $1.351 trillion in income, more than 91% of which came from the 12.4% payroll tax on earned income (wages and salary, but not investment income). Even though the tax on benefits “only” generated $50.7 billion in 2023 for Social Security, it’s becoming a progressively more important source of income.
According to the 2024 Trustees Report, the taxation of benefits was estimated to generate $943.9 billion in cumulative income between 2024 and 2033. While removing this tax would increase what select retirees are able to keep for a few years, it would ultimately widen Social Security’s long-term funding obligation shortfall and shorten the OASI’s asset reserve depletion timeline.
This is a good time to mention that Trump’s desire to reduce/eliminate taxes in other areas could come back to haunt Social Security.
In October, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) examined the full effect Donald Trump’s tax agenda would have on Social Security. The CRFB’s analysis determined that Trump’s proposed elimination of taxes on overtime pay and tips would increase Social Security’s 10-year deficit by $900 billion.
Collectively, ending the taxation of benefits and eliminating taxes on overtime pay and tips would widen Social Security’s deficit by an estimated $1.85 trillion over 10 years. This would expedite the OASI’s asset reserve depletion timeline and meaningfully increase how much benefits would need to be cut if/when the OASI’s asset reserves run dry.
The short-term benefits of Trump’s proposed Social Security changes would be more than outweighed by the long-term cost to retirees.
The $22,924 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook
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.
Anti-Trump Protests Break Out at State Capitols Across the Country
Hafiz Rashid – February 5, 2025
Thousands of Americans are protesting in cities across the United States Wednesday against Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s early attempts to overhaul the federal government.
The protests took place at state capitols across the country, organized online by a movement called 50501, referring to 50 protests in 50 states in one day. Demonstrators gathered in Michigan, Texas, Wisconsin, Indiana, Delaware, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, according to the r/50501 subreddit and the Associated Press.
In Philadelphia, protesters gathered outside of a federal courthouse holding signs that said “TRUMP + MUSK ARE NOT KINGS” and “RESIST.” In Madison, Wisconsin, demonstrators at the state Capitol held signs objecting to fascism, Elon Musk, and the conservative manifesto Project 2025. In Lansing, Michigan, about 500 people demonstrated outside the state Capitol denouncing Trump’s plans for Gaza, the rollback of transgender rights, and the federal government’s mass deportation efforts under Trump.
One of the organizers at Michigan’s protest only learned about the movement on Sunday night, and helped with coordinating speakers and safety protocols.
“I want to look back at this time and say that I did something and I didn’t just sit back,” Kelsey Brianne told the AP Monday night.
On social media, protesters used the hashtag #50501 to organize and document the protests. Videos were also posted by journalists and media outlets across the country showing local protests.
X screenshot Matthew Pearson @justmattphotoj: I’m outside the Georgia State Capitol where a crowd has gathered as part of the 50501 protests that went viral through Reddit. Protesters are chanting demands to shut down ICE and protect trans youth along with condemning Elon Musk’s role in the Trump admin. @wabenews (photos of the protests, including one sign that says “Elon Musk Is A Terrible President”More
Protest organizers describe the push as a “decentralized rapid response to the anti-democratic, destructive, and, in many cases, illegal actions being undertaken by the Trump administration and his plutocrats,” the “Build the Resistance” website states.
Kay Evert, an organizer involved in the movement, told USA TODAY the effort started as an idea posted on Reddit and several activist organizations hopped in to help consolidate, organize and promote the protests.
“We’re here trying to keep them going forward,” she said. “This is going to bring up so much …. no one can ignore this, right? We want to have that momentum continue on.”
A post in the 50501 subreddit Wednesday morning claims the movement has evolved in less than two weeks, amassed 72,000 participants, and planned 67 protests across 40 states.
The 50501 moderators also partnered with Political Revolution, a PAC and volunteer-only activist organization founded out of the conclusion of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign in 2016.
The 50501 movement and Political Revolution said in a joint press release they are calling for the removal or resignation of President Donald Trump, investigations into his administration appointees including Elon Musk, the repeal of “oppressive” executive orders and the restoration of diversity, equity and inclusion frameworks.
Evert said protests are also aimed at Project 2025, the conservative agenda that re-entered the public conversations as Democrats condemned some early Trump administration moves.
“Our goal is to unite the American people against our common enemy: the Trump administration, anyone involved in dismantling our democracy, and anyone who wishes to divide us by our differences instead of unite us by what makes us American,” the joint press release states.
Kinsey Crowley is a trending news reporter at USA TODAY.
‘Anti-Trumpers’ plan protests in every state on Wednesday. What’s happening in Georgia?
Vanessa Countryman, Savannah Morning News – February 4, 2025
A group calling themselves the “50501 Movement” are planning protests across the country, and in Georgia, on Wednesday, Feb. 5.
The group claims to be fighting “fascism” by protesting against President Donald Trump and his actions in office.
How many people are in the 50501 Movement?
U.S. President Donald Trump looks on as he signs an executive order in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S., January 31, 2025.
The movement has platforms, including a website and social media accounts, but the number of members is unclear. The Instagram account has nearly 7,000 followers and its official Bluesky account has over 10,000 followers.
Where are people protesting in Georgia against Trump?
The group is planning to hold protests mostly at each state’s capitol building. Georgia’s will be held at Centennial Park in Atlanta at 2 p.m., according the groups social media.
More groups are forming around the state, including in Augusta at the Richmond County Courthouse from 4 to 7 p.m.
Why are people protesting against Donald Trump?
They are protesting Project 2025 because they believe that the president is attempting to destroy freedoms and human rights.
What is Project 2025?
Project 2025 is a movement started by over 100 conservative organizations. This movement is intended to get rid of the so-called ‘Deep State’ and give the government back to the people, according to its website. Here is a list of some of its policy suggestions:
Secure the border, finish building the wall, and deport illegal aliens
De-weaponize the Federal Government by increasing accountability and oversight of the FBI and DOJ
Unleash American energy production to reduce energy prices
Cut the growth of government spending to reduce inflation
Make federal bureaucrats more accountable to the democratically elected President and Congress
Improve education by moving control and funding of education from DC bureaucrats directly to parents and state and local governments
Ban biological males from competing in women’s sports
Vanessa Countryman is the Trending Topics Reporter for the the Deep South Connect Team Georgia.
Tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China Could Start This Weekend
Eric Boehm – January 31, 2025
Photo by Lucas van Oort on Unsplash
Huge new tariffs on goods imported from Canada, China, and Mexico could begin as soon as this weekend.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at a Friday press conference that the Trump administration was prepared to impose a new 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico, along with a 10 percent tariff on imports from China. Aside from that statement, Leavitt offered few specifics and the White House has so far not released any further details about the new import taxes.
That leaves many unknowns, such as: Under what authority is President Donald Trump implementing those tariffs? Are there exceptions for certain goods, or are the tariffs being charged on all imports from the three countries? Do those tariffs apply on top of existing import duties—for example, is the new 10 percent tariff on goods from China imposed on top of the tariffs on many Chinese imports that Trump implemented during his first term—or in place of them? Will there be a process for certain companies and industries to seek relief from tariffs for goods that cannot be sourced in the United States, like tequila?
Adding to the confusion: Reuters reported earlier on Friday that those tariffs will be implemented on March 1. Leavitt called that report “false.”
Canada, China, and Mexico are the United States’ three largest trading partners. In 2023, the last full year for which data are available, the U.S. imported $475 billion of goods from Mexico, $426 billion from China, and $418 billion from Canada.
In her remarks to reporters, Leavitt said the new tariffs were being issued in response to the “illegal fentanyl that they have sourced and allowed to distribute into our country.” In an interview with CNBC on Friday, Trump’s trade advisor Peter Navarro also claimed that “fentanyl…that comes from China and Mexico” was the prime motivator for the new import taxes.
This makes very little sense. How will higher taxes on legal imports affect the flow of illegal drugs?
What the tariffs will do is raise prices for American businesses and consumers.
Though much uncertainly remains about how these tariffs will function, a full-fledged 25 percent tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico, plus a 10 percent tariff on all imports from China, would be a tax increase of $111 billion this year and would shrink the U.S. economy by 0.4 percent, according to estimates by the Tax Foundation.
“Several industries would experience severe disruption, including autos, oil & gas, and agriculture,” wrote Erica York, vice president of policy at the Tax Foundation, in a post on X shortly after Leavitt announced the new tariffs.
Auto manufacturers, which rely on supply chains that stretch across the whole of North America—thanks to free trade agreements—figure to be some of the hardest hit. “Steep tariffs on vehicles would not only raise prices north of the border and shock the Mexican auto sector and its workers. They would also cost jobs in the United States,” warned the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in December. “Because of the highly integrated value chains in the North American auto sector, a high share of US-origin parts are embedded in Mexico’s motor vehicle exports. US suppliers of these parts could soon be caught in the crossfire of Trump’s trade war.”
Fruit and vegetable imports from Mexico will be another victim. “If you put tariffs on Mexican fruits and vegetables, there’s no doubt about it, you’ll have inflation in the supermarket and you will have bare shelves,” Lance Jungmeyer, president of the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, toldThe Packer, a trade publication, in November. “Consumers will not be happy with that.”
Tariffs on crude oil imports from Canada will likely drive up prices at the gas pump. More than 50 percent of the crude oil imported to the U.S. comes from Canada, and analysts believe tariffs could cause prices to jump by 40 cents or even 70 cents per gallon. If those tariffs spiral into a broader trade war, energy companies are already warning about “volatility in crude oil prices, impacting refineries and downstream fuel markets, especially for gasoline and diesel.”
There are also unanswered questions about how the other countries might respond. “All three governments have promised to answer Mr. Trump’s levies with tariffs of their own on U.S. exports, including Florida orange juice, Tennessee whiskey and Kentucky peanut butter,” The New York Timesnotes.
Make no mistake, this is a trade war of choice being launched unilaterally by Trump. It is a foolish and self-destructive move, one that (in the case of tariffs on Canada and Mexico, at least) directly violates a trade deal Trump signed during his first term and hailed as “the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law. It’s the best agreement we’ve ever made.”
Tariffs are not a path to peace or prosperity, and igniting a trade war with America’s three largest trade partners is sure to have negative consequences no one can foresee at the moment.
“Sound fiscal policy and effective incentives to work, save and invest can increase economic growth, but the implementation of broad-based tariffs impedes that growth and in a full-blown trade war would overwhelm it,” warned economists Phil Gramm and Larry Summers, in a powerful op-ed published Friday in The Wall Street Journal. “We therefore urge Congress not to adopt the administration’s proposed tariffs and urge the president not to implement those tariffs by executive order.”
Congress should act immediately to block these tariffs, reassure America’s top trade partners and other allies, and revoke much of the president’s authority over trade.
Trump announced he will implement a 25 percent tariff on Canada and Mexico for all imported goods. China, meanwhile, will face face an additional 10 percent tariff. Trump says the additional charges are part of an effort to curtail “crime and drugs” coming into the U.S. and slow the number of illegal border crossings.
Though tariffs are designed to promote domestic production and purchasing by taxing imported goods, the increase in cost typically falls on consumers, not foreign governments. Numerous economic experts have warned that Trump’s tariffs on goods from those three countries could lead to price spikes and inflation – a concern shared by many voters who said they backed Trump.
The U.S. imports a host of goods from Canada, Mexico and China directly as well as supplies for products made in America. Here Here’s what resources, materials or products come from those countries:
Donald Trump has proposed tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada – which provide a host of goods to the U.S. such as toys, lumber and food (AFP via Getty Images)
Although the U.S. produces large quantities of crude oil every day, it makes more economic sense to import it. Crude oil produced in the U.S. is considered “light” compared to the “heavy” oil produced in Canada and the Middle East.
This means the U.S. relies on imports for “heavy” oil. Importing from Canada, which is close by and doesn’t require as much transportation as other countries such as those in the Middle East, makes it more accessible.
Gasoline is made from crude oil and price spikes in oil can lead to more pain at the pump.
Many experts say Trump’s threatened tariffs will lead to price increases (Getty Images)
“A 25% tariff on Canadian oil would have huge impacts to #gasprices in the Great Lakes, Midwest & Rockies, which are major markets where refiners process Canadian oil. You can’t simply process different oil overnight. It would take investments/years. More U.S. supply wouldn’t help,” warned gas price expert Patrick De Haan on X.
De Haan, an industry leader with GasBuddy.com, further warned that oil refineries in the U.S. have shrunken over the last four years – making it harder for the U.S. to increase its production in gasoline.
“Total impact to #gasprices in these areas could be 25-75c/gal, dependent on season and refining factors as well if tariffs go through,” De Haan added.
Motor vehicles and parts
Mexico is the largest exporter of vehicles, vehicle parts and vehicle accessories to the U.S. than any other country making up 27 percent of all imports from Mexico.
Importing auto parts abroad and then assembling them in the U.S. is a cheaper alternative than manufacturing and assembling domestically. Tariffs would increase the cost of most cars, though it’s not clear how much.
Patrick Anderson, chief executive of Anderson Economic Group, a consulting firm in Michigan, told the New York Times: “There is probably not a single assembly plant in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Texas that would not immediately be affected by a 25 percent tariff.”
Tariffs “would spell disaster for the U.S. auto industry,” analysts at Bernstein said in a note to investors, according to the Times. But, they added, they doubt Trump will follow through.
“Given the wide-ranging negative implications for industrial production in the U.S., we expect this is unlikely to happen in practice,” the Bernstein analysts said.
These include items such as television sets, smartphones, monitors, projects and more. All of them could see price increases if tariffs are imposed and passed on to consumers.
Mexico too is also a major producer of electronics not only in the U.S. but across the globe.
“Mexico has over 730 plants manufacturing audio and video, telecommunications, computer equipment, and related parts. It is the largest exporter of flat-screen TVs in the world, the third-largest exporter of computers, and the eighth-largest producer of electronics in the world,” consulting firm IVEMSA, according to PC Mag.
Experts are warning that many of electronics sold in America come from Mexico, Canada and China and could see price increases (AP)
Sugar
Among Mexico’s largest exports to the U.S. are sugar and sweeteners. The U.S. spends more than $700 million importing sugar directly from Mexico.
More than 445,000 metric tons of sugar were imported to U.S. ports from Mexico between October 2023 and September 2024.
Fresh vegetables and fruit
The U.S. spends more than $20 billion annually importing horticultural agricultural products from Canada and Mexico. Tomatoes, avocados, peppers, strawberries, lemons, limes, broccoli, cauliflower and so much more produce is imported into the U.S. from Mexico.
Canada supplies the U.S. with mushrooms, potatoes and more.
All of those items could see price increases with tariffs. That would hit American consumers hard as grocery prices have already risen by about 25 percent since 2020. Many voters used groceries as an example of how inflation impacted their day-to-day lives, so another price increase in food could be devastating to households.
Meat
Beef and beef products are often imported from Canada and Mexico and the amount imported has only risen over the last three years.
An analysis by Third Way found that the average cost of 3lbs of frozen beef in America is $26.67. A 10 percent tariff on all goods, with a 60 percent tariff on goods from China, would lead to a price jump for the same meat to $27.76.
Consumers have already seen grocery prices jump by 25 percent since 2020, but Trump’s proposed tariffs could lead to more price increases (AP)
Toys
China’s third largest export to the U.S. are toys, games and sports requisites because they are cheaper to manufacture overseas.
Though the idea of tariffs is to promote domestic production, the chief executive of Basic Fun, the maker of Fischer-Price and Care Bears, told The New York Post there is “no manufacturing base for toys in the U.S. anymore.”
The same analysis by Third Way estimated the cost of an average board game going from $14.87 to $17.85 under Trump’s tariffs.
Wood, plastics and other materials
All three countries provide the U.S. with an abundance of materials like wood, plastics, iron, textiles and more.
Some companies have already warned that tariffs on materials could lead to a spike increase, even for products assembled in America.
“People generally don’t understand how dependent the global economy is for those kinds of intermediate goods, raw materials, that we sort of take for granted,” Willy Shih, an economist at Harvard Business School, told PackagingDive.com.
“They need to understand where their exposures are,” he said. “A lot of times, it’ll be in surprising areas, because your exposure may be at your supplier level. Your tier two supplier may have exposure to tariffs and you may not know, but the first thing you got to do is understand all that.”
