CNN Poll: Public remains negative on Trump ahead of address to Congress

CNN

CNN Poll: Public remains negative on Trump ahead of address to Congress

Jennifer Agiesta, CNN – March 2, 2025

CNN Poll: Public remains negative on Trump ahead of address to Congress

The American public’s view of Donald Trump’s presidency and the direction he’s leading the country is more negative than positive just ahead of his first formal address to Congress since returning to office, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

The survey finds that across three basic measures of Trump’s performance on the job – his approval rating, whether he has the right priorities and whether his policies are taking the country in the right direction – the negative side outpaces the positive.

Overall, 52% disapprove of Trump’s performance in office, with 48% approving, about the same as in a CNN poll in mid-February. The poll was completed before Friday’s angry exchange in the Oval Office between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and does not reflect public opinion on that event.

Trump continues to be broadly popular with Republicans (90% of whom approve of his handling of the job) and unpopular among Democrats (90% disapprove), while disapproval among independents is approaching 6 in 10: 41% approve and 59% disapprove. Earlier in February, a similar 43% of independents approved and 56% disapproved.

Trump’s 48% approval rating ahead of his initial address to Congress is higher than it was in 2017 before that year’s speech at the Capitol. Trump’s appearances before Congress during his first term did little to move the needle on his approval rating: None of his four speeches resulted in a change to his approval rating of more than 3 percentage points. Trump will be addressing a country that is largely greeting his policy proposals with skepticism. More Americans see Trump’s policy proposals as taking the country in the wrong direction (45%) than the right one (39%), with 15% expressing no opinion on the question. In early March of 2017, just after that first-term initial address to Congress, Americans split about evenly over whether Trump’s policies would lead the right way or the wrong one, but by the following January, they said by a 12-point margin that his policies were pointing the nation in the wrong direction.

A majority also say Trump has not paid enough attention to the country’s most important problems (52% feel that way), with 40% saying he has had the right priorities and another 8% unsure. Doubts about the president’s priorities extend to a small but notable share of those who express support for the president on other measures in the poll: 12% of those who approve of the way Trump has handled the presidency and 9% of those who say his policies move the country in the right direction say his priorities haven’t yet been in the right place. And among his own partisans, 18% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say he hasn’t yet focused on the most important issues. Fewer than 1 in 10 who align with the Democratic Party see him as focused on the right things.

Demographic trends in views of the president have largely held steady since earlier in the month. Overall, Trump’s approval rating remains deeply underwater among younger adults (41% of those ages 18 to 34 approve), Hispanic adults (41% approve) and Black adults (28% approve). Women break sharply negative (57% disapprove to 42% approve), while men generally approve (54% approve to 46% disapprove). Trump maintains an approval rating north of 60% among Whites without college degrees (61% approve).

Younger Americans are among those most likely to see Trump as taking the country the wrong way: 51% of those age 18 to 34 feel that way vs. 31% who say he’s taking it in the right direction, and 61% in this group say he hasn’t paid enough attention to the country’s most pressing problems. Just 14% of Black adults and 31% of Hispanic adults see Trump’s policies as going in the right direction, with roughly two-thirds or more in each group saying Trump’s priorities are off (69% among Black adults, 64% among Hispanics). Independents also break negative on Trump’s policies and are 20 points more likely to say Trump is taking the country down the wrong path than the right one.

Opinions of his policies among these groups, though, remain less than fully settled. Roughly one-quarter of independents currently say they don’t have an opinion on how Trump’s proposals will affect the nation, as do 21% of Americans of color and 18% of those younger than 45.

The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS from February 24-28 among a random national sample of 2,212 adults drawn from a probability-based panel. Surveys were either conducted online or by telephone with a live interviewer. Results among the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.

CNN’s Ariel Edwards-Levy and Edward Wu contributed to this report.

More in Politics
Fox News: Trump should ‘stew in his own juice’ during congressional address, Pelosi advises Dems
HuffPost: Jasmine Crockett Sums Up GOP Lawmakers In 1 Damning Word Regarding Trump And Musk

Why has it taken so long? ‘Enough is enough’: Europe’s leaders are piling pressure on the EU to release $200 billion of frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine

Fortune

‘Enough is enough’: Europe’s leaders are piling pressure on the EU to release $200 billion of frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine

Ryan Hogg = February 25, 2025

Russia’s central bank reserves could become a key negotiating toold for the West.

Europe’s leaders to the East are piling pressure on the EU to release hundreds of billions of dollars worth of frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort as relations with the U.S. deteriorate.

Leaders from Poland, Estonia, and Finland have in the last week added to growing calls to liquidate Russian central bank reserves, which have been valued between $200 billion and $300 billion.

Russian central bank reserves located in Europe—including currency, gold, and government bonds—were seized as part of wide-ranging sanctions against the country when Russia launched its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

To date, they have stayed put owing to questions over the legality of unlocking the funds, nerves over the ramifications of unlocking them, and their alternative potential as a bargaining tool in peace talks.

In July last year, the G7 nations agreed on a landmark deal to use the proceeds from the profits of Russia’s frozen assets to fund Ukraine’s defense effort, which helped fund a €50 billion loan to the country, but that is where progress has stopped.

European leaders pile on the pressure

The urgency to unlock new avenues for funding has accelerated since Donald Trump’s inauguration in January, after the U.S. president excluded Europe and Ukraine from initial peace talks with Russia and gave early verbal concessions to Putin, spooking Europe.

An easy win, as far as the EU’s Eastern and Baltic states are concerned, is to liquidate the central bank reserves assets Russia left behind.

Poland prime minister Donald Tusk posted on X last week: “Enough talking, it’s time to act! Let’s finance our aid for Ukraine from the Russian frozen assets.”

In a televised address to the nation on Monday, Czechia Prime Minister Petr Fiala followed suit.

“For further military support of Ukraine, we must use money from frozen Russian assets from across the entire Europe,” he said, adding that Trump had “decided to completely transform” U.S. foreign policy.

“The speed, thrust, and rhetoric are certainly surprising, but the shift of the United States away from focusing on Europe should not surprise us,” said Fiala.

Estonia’s foreign minister, Margus Tsahkna, told Reuters: “The decision to use the windfall profits was a step in the right direction. I see that the time is ripe now to take the next step.”

In February last year, former treasury secretary Janet Yellen marked herself out as an early advocate of liquidating the hundreds of billions of dollars in seized Russian assets.

“I believe there is a strong international law, economic, and moral case for moving forward. This would be a decisive response to Russia’s unprecedented threat to global stability,” Yellen said.

The latest calls have, however, highlighted a divide in the EU.

Germany, France, Italy, and the European Commission have resisted calls to unlock the funds for their own use. The opposition comes from a fear that the seizure of free market assets would alarm international investors and hurt Europe’s legitimacy in the long run.

Instead, these countries prefer to view the frozen reserves as a strong bargaining tool in negotiations with Russia, a point French president Emmanuel Macron repeated during a conversation with Trump this week.

Some in the Russian administration are reportedly ready to part ways with its reserves, provided the territories by the country stay after the war, with some even suggesting the reserves are used towards payment for this territory.

More in World
Fortune: American troops pack more punch than European ones, and fighting Russia without the U.S. would require adding more than 300,000, think tank says
The Hill: These 17 countries voted with US against Ukraine UN resolution

This is not the time for presidential deference, the Huns are at the gates of our Constitutional Democracy: Ex-Presidents Under Fire for Silence on Trump: ‘The Time Is Now’

Daily Beast

Ex-Presidents Under Fire for Silence on Trump: ‘The Time Is Now’

Liam Archacki – February 20, 2025

Former U.S. Vice Presidents Al Gore and Mike Pence, Karen Pence, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former U.S. President George W. Bush, Laura Bush, former U.S. President Barack Obama, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and Melania Trump.
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Some Democratic are dismayed that the living former U.S. presidents have largely fallen silent amid the whirlwind first month of Donald Trump’s presidency.

Despite each offering some degree of criticism against Trump in the past, the four other presidents—Bill ClintonGeorge W. BushBarack Obama, and Joe Biden—have kept quiet during the Trump White House’s assault on political norms.

“No one knows more about the importance of our presidents respecting separation of powers and showing restraint than former presidents,” Democratic strategist Joel Payne told The Hill. “Given Trump’s ongoing power grab, those voices and perspectives of our ex-presidents would be critical to the public discourse at this moment.”

His stance was echoed by unnamed former senior Obama aide.

“I don’t know what they’re waiting for,” the insider told The Hill. “The time isn’t when Trump ignores court rulings. The time is now.”

Donald Trump arrives to welcome Marc Fogel back to the United States after being released from Russian custody, at the White House on February 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. / Al Drago / Getty Images
Donald Trump arrives to welcome Marc Fogel back to the United States after being released from Russian custody, at the White House on February 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. / Al Drago / Getty Images

Since entering office on Jan. 20, Trump has given his critics plenty of fodder. He has installed loyalists in key administration positions, flouted the Constitution by issuing brazen executive orders, and fired thousands of federal employees (with Elon Musk’s help).

On Wednesday, Trump went as far as to refer to himself as a “king.”

All three of the Democratic presidents had been unsparing in their previous criticism of Trump.

In his farewell address, Biden warned that “an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms.”

He emphasized the importance of staying “engaged” in the Democratic process.

Meanwhile, Obama and his wife Michelle Obama were two of Kamala Harris’ highest-profile surrogates during the 2024 campaign.

A month after Trump’s election, Obama gave a speech about the “increasing willingness on the part of politicians and their followers to violate democratic norms, to do anything they can to get their way.”

Obama did dip his toes into Trump criticism earlier this month, posting on X a New York Times op-ed slamming Trump and Musk’s push to end the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“USAID has been fighting disease, feeding children, and promoting goodwill around the world for six decades,” he wrote. “As this article makes clear, dismantling this agency would be a profound foreign policy mistake – one that Congress should resist.”

Otherwise, it’s been crickets.

Although Bush has seemed to cast indirect criticism at Trump and MAGA Republicanism, he has long refrained from explicit rebukes of his party member.

“It’s out of respect to the office,” a former Bush aide told The Hill. “It’s just not his style.”

In the past, presidents in general have steered clear of openly criticizing their successors—seemingly as sign of deference.

To that point, Democratic strategist Lynda Tran told The Hill that “in the age of Trump, it’s more important than ever that we respect and adhere to long-standing traditions,” like past presidents avoiding public debates with the sitting commander in chief.

She urged “faith in the other branches of government.”

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President George W. Bush, former First Lady Laura Bush and former President Barack Obama attend the inauguration of Donald Trump in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Donald Trump takes office for his second term. / Pool / Getty Images
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President George W. Bush, former First Lady Laura Bush and former President Barack Obama attend the inauguration of Donald Trump in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Donald Trump takes office for his second term. / Pool / Getty ImagesMore

Meanwhile, Susan Del Percio, a Republican strategist who doesn’t support Trump, said that there would be no upside to criticism from the presidents.

“They can’t, and they know it,” she said. “If they lend their voices to the conversation, they’ll just be taken down by Trump. If they speak out, it’ll be for the history books, not to affect the Trump presidency now.”

More in Politics
Daily Beast: Trump Sends Resolute Desk for Touch-Up After Musk’s Son Seemingly Wiped a Booger on It

Trump’s Mass Layoffs Leave Federal Workers Baffled, Angry

TIME

Trump’s Mass Layoffs Leave Federal Workers Baffled, Angry

Nik Popli – February 18, 2025

Protesters demonstrate in support of federal workers outside of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on February 14, 2025 in Washington, DC. Organizers held the protest to speak on the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts. Credit – Anna Moneymaker–Getty Images

A mid-level probationary worker with the U.S. Department of Agriculture read the letter in disbelief. It was from the USDA’s human resources department explaining he no longer had a job. The letter said the decision had been made “based on your performance.” But it didn’t make sense to him.

“There’s no way to tie me to a specific performance issue because I’m six weeks on the job,” says the employee, who works out of Phoenix and, like others interviewed for this report, spoke with TIME on the condition of anonymity. He says no one had mentioned any issues with his work before receiving the letter.

The USDA employee was among thousands of federal workers across the country hit with layoffs that began on Thursday with little prior notice, targeting probationary workers—those who have been employed by the federal government for less than one or two years and are easier to fire. The Trump Administration has ordered most agencies to let go of nearly all probationary employees who haven’t yet gained civil service protection.

The layoffs have shaken both federal employees and the unions that represent them, prompting widespread condemnation and setting the stage for future legal battles. Many in the federal workforce see the aggressive nature of the cuts as proof that the Trump Administration isn’t just trying to cut costs, but dismantle the federal workforce and reduce its capacity to serve the public.

“I feel like right now the administration is kind of demonizing federal workers,” says a senior IRS agent from New York who was hired in July and “fully expects” to receive a termination notice in the coming days.

The firings are part of a broader push spearheaded by the Trump Administration and the newly-established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an initiative run by billionaire Elon Musk to streamline government operations. Musk has gone so far as to suggest that entire agencies should be “deleted,” likening them to “weeds” in need of eradication. Legal experts and union representatives argue many of DOGE’s actions are not legal.

The letter for the USDA employee, viewed by TIME, cited guidance from the Office of Personnel Management, claiming that probationary employees have “the burden to demonstrate why it is in the public interest for the Government to finalize an appointment to the civil service for this particular individual.” Soon after Trump’s inauguration, the leadership at OPM was replaced with Musk allies.

Elsewhere, thousands of workers were laid off in group calls or via pre-recorded messages, with their government access revoked immediately. Others were told they would be formally fired by emails. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which provides crucial services and benefits to military veterans, laid off more than 1,000 employees on Thursday alone, with VA Secretary Doug Collins claiming that the move would save the department $98 million per year. The vast majority of probationary employees, including those in the VA’s health care system, were exempted from the layoffs.

The abrupt and seemingly callous manner of conducting layoffs has left many workers stunned. One HR manager at the Veterans Health Administration, who has worked for the department for more than two decades, said that he had never witnessed anything like this in all his years of service. “It’s the worst I’ve ever seen,” he says. At a staff meeting on Friday, he says leadership told them they were finding out about the terminations at the same time as the rest of the agency’s staff, and that the decisions were being made by a small group in the Office of Personnel Management backed by DOGE. “We’re paralyzed because we don’t know what’s happening tomorrow,” he adds.

The HR manager noted that he voted for Trump in the last three presidential elections and “will never make that mistake again.”

“If the GOP wants to win someone like me back, they would need to start making changes right now,” he says. “I have not voted for a Democrat in two decades. I will vote Democrat in the midterms and the next presidential race for sure.” Other federal employees who mentioned voting for Trump in the past say they are reconsidering their support for the Republican administration.

The layoffs come soon after a federal judge in Massachusetts allowed the Trump Administration to proceed with an offer for federal employees to leave their jobs with the promise of continuing to be paid through September. That offer expired on Wednesday, Trump officials said. The White House said that 77,000 workers, or around 3% of the civilian workforce, agreed to the buyout.

Jourdain Solis, a 27-year-old fuel compliance officer at the Internal Revenue Service in Fresno, Calif., accepted the buyout earlier this month, feeling it offered more security than staying in a job that didn’t seem like a priority under the new Administration. “I couldn’t guarantee that my program would stick around,” he said. “Taking this offer would have been much better than being laid off and only qualifying for unemployment.”

Solis also acknowledges feeling undervalued by the government with the ongoing rhetoric about job cuts and waste. “Our value as public servants gets questioned all the time,” he says. “So I just really didn’t want to work for a country that doesn’t respect public servants as much as they should.”

But many federal workers declined to take the resignation offer, in part because they were worried about its validity. The buyouts are technically not funded, as Congress hasn’t appropriated funding beyond March 14. “There are too many questions and concerns,” one worker at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told TIME. “It’s a joke,” says the probationary IRS agent. “There’s all kinds of issues with the funding. Nobody trusted it.” Solis admits he still has some questions about the legality of it all but says he’s prepared to take legal action if the government doesn’t follow through with the offer.

The ramifications of the staff reductions go far beyond the individual workers, potentially shifting the government’s relationship with the rest of its workforce. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents many of those dismissed, has vowed to challenge the firings in court, calling them a violation of workers’ rights. “These firings are not about poor performance,” said Everett Kelley, the union’s president. “There is no evidence these employees were anything but dedicated public servants. They are about power. They are about gutting the federal government, silencing workers, and forcing agencies into submission to a radical agenda that prioritizes cronyism over competence.”

As the cuts continue, agencies are bracing for more uncertainty, and federal workers remain on edge. “I can feel it in my interactions with people,” said the former USDA employee. “People are nervous because they don’t know what’s going on with their jobs. And even the senior leadership at most of the agencies doesn’t know what’s going on.”

Some of these workers say they had hoped the changes under the new administration would be gradual. The speed and abrupt nature of it all has left many feeling blindsided.

Federal workers typically have the option to appeal layoffs or suspensions to the Merit Systems Protection Board, a process that involves an initial review by administrative judges before a final decision is made by the board itself. However, many workers fear that these legal avenues may not be enough to protect their rights in the face of an administration determined to impose sweeping changes.

For many, the recent firings are a stark reminder of how quickly the administration is willing to reshape the government, even if it might undermine its effectiveness. Asked about DOGE’s operations, the VA employee said: “They obviously are out of their depth and are struggling desperately to make whatever it is that they are trying to do work,” he adds. “I don’t think they will succeed.”

More in Politics
The Hill: Warnock at National Cathedral: ‘Don’t tell me you reject DEI when you live in a White House built by Black hands’
Associated Press: Mike Pence emerges as one of the few Republicans willing to challenge Trump 2.0
HuffPost: ‘Way Sooner Than You Think’: James Carville Names Key Date Trump May Be Dreading

President Donald Trump Wants to Change Social Security, but It Comes With a Potentially Big Cost to Retirees

The Motley Fool

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.

The problem is that not all proposed changes to Social Security improve its financial footing.

Donald Trump signing a stack of paperwork while seated at a desk in the Oval Office.
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.

A visibly concerned couple examining their finances while seated a a table in their home.
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.

View the “Social Security secrets” »

Anti-Trump Protests Break Out at State Capitols Across the Country

The New Republic

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"
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

‘Anti-Trumpers’ plan protests in every state on Wednesday. What’s happening in Georgia?

Savannah Morning News

‘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.
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

Reason

Tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China Could Start This Weekend

Eric Boehm – January 31, 2025

Shipping containers
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, told The 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 Times notes.

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.

How Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China could impact U.S. consumers

Independent

How Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China could impact U.S. consumers

Ariana Baio – January 31, 2025

Oil, toys, vegetables and electronics are just some of the items imported to the U.S. from Mexico, Canada and China that could soon cost Americans more under Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs.

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)
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)
Crude Oil

Canada is the largest supplier of crude oil to the U.S. with more than 3.8 million barrels per day, or 60 percent of U.S. crude oil imports, coming from its northern neighbor.

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)
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.

Electronic Equipment

More than a quarter of U.S. imports from China fall under the electronic equipment, machinery and products category.

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)
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)
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.”

More in Business
Interesting Engineering: XM-30: US Army’s biggest combat overhaul in a century is finally rolling
Business Insider: UPS plunged after saying it would deliver fewer Amazon packages. Its CEO says it’s about ‘taking control of our destiny.’
Good Morning America: These prices could climb within days if Trump slaps tariffs on Canada and Mexico

trump begins his first war: Trump Reveals When His Tariffs on Mexico and Canada Will Kick In

The Daily Beast

Trump Reveals When His Tariffs on Mexico and Canada Will Kick In

Emell Derra Adolphus – January 30, 2025

Claudia Sheinbaum, Donald Trump, and Justin Trudeau.
The Daily Beast/Getty

President Donald Trump affirmed on Thursday that imports from U.S. allies Mexico and Canada will be hit with a 25 percent tariff starting on Saturday.

Speaking to the press from the Oval Office, Trump said that his administration will follow through in announcing tariffs on America’s neighboring countries for “a number of reasons”—chiefly among them being an alleged influx of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, reported The Hill.

On his first day in office, Trump issued a proclamation declaring a state of emergency at America’s southern border.

Thirty-six hours later, the declaration enabled the Department of Defense to send 1,500 troops to the region to work on the placement of barriers and other related actions to deter illegal crossings. According to DOD report, the troops were on standby in Southern California to help combat the Los Angeles County wildfires.

“For the past four years, the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to enforce the border, resulting in a catastrophic immigration crisis for the United States,” declared Trump’s proclamation. However, when Congress was close to passing a bipartisan border security bill in 2024, Trump allegedly pressured Republican allies to kill the bill so he could continue hammering Democrats about border chaos during his campaign, reported CNN.

President Donald Trump talks with Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. / NICHOLAS KAMM / AFP via Getty Images
President Donald Trump talks with Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. / NICHOLAS KAMM / AFP via Getty Images

Trump also cited an influx of drugs, specifically fentanyl, crossing into the United States—as well as a trade deficit—as reason for implementing tariffs on Canada and Mexico.

“I’ll be putting the tariff of 25 percent on Canada and Mexico, and we will really have to do that because we have very big deficits with those countries,” he said. “Those tariffs may or may not rise with time.”

Mexico and Canada are major exporters of gas, food and automobiles to the U.S., with several U.S.-based automobile manufacturers shipping cars back and forth across America’s borders during the manufacturing process.

The president said that his administration has not yet decided on whether it would levy tariffs on oil imports, reported Reuters.

“We may or may not. We’re going to make that determination probably tonight,” said Trump. He added that this would partly depend on prices and on whether the two countries “treat us properly.”