Lopez is president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a nonpartisan public policy advocacy organization that advances liberty, opportunity and prosperity for all.
With financial insecurity looming in the consciousness of millions of Americans, it was encouraging to see the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed legislation that strengthens and expands opportunities for those who participate in private retirement plans through their employer. Tens of millions of Americans stand to benefit from potential changes in the law.
The Securing a Strong Retirement Act, often referred to as SECURE 2.0, passed the chamber with overwhelming bipartisan support (by a vote of 414-5) — which is in and of itself eyebrow-raising these days.
The bill includes a series of critical changes that will help small businesses and their employees, lower- and middle-income families, and anyone attempting to save and improve their economic outlook.
One of the most important provisions of SECURE 2.0 is enhancement of the Saver’s Credit, a tax credit available to low- and moderate-income workers who make contributions out of their salary to their employer-sponsored 401(k), 403(b), SIMPLE, SEP or governmental 457 plan, or who contribute to traditional or Roth IRAs.
Under current law, the credit percentage — which is multiplied by the contribution (up to the maximum contribution of $2,000) — is 50 percent, 20 percent, 10 percent or zero, based on the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income. SECURE 2.0 eliminates the MAGI tiers and makes the credit percentage 50 percent for all who don’t surpass the upper-income threshold. For example, if a married couple has $48,000 of income, and one of them makes a $2,000 contribution to a plan or IRA, the current credit of 10 percent equals a $200 tax credit. Under SECURE 2.0, that same couple would receive a 50 percent credit — $1,000.
SECURE 2.0 also incentivizes small businesses to offer retirement plans, an employee benefit that is often difficult for small businesses to establish.The three-year small-business start-up credit is currently 50 percent of administrative costs, up to an annual cap that can be as much as $5,000. If a company with up to 100 employees starts a retirement plan and spends $3,000 per year administering it, the employer currently receives a $1,500 per year credit for three years. Under SECURE 2.0, that 50 percent credit would increase to 100 percent for employers with up to 50 employees, going from $1,500 to $3,000 in this example.
To illustrate the power of the additional credit based on contributions, assume that a 40-employee company makes $500 contributions for each of its employees. The contribution-based credit for that company over five years would total $70,000 — $20,000 in each of the first two years, $15,000 in the third year, $10,000 in the fourth and $5,000 in the fifth. This is a powerful incentive that helps both the small business itself and of course its employees.
SECURE 2.0 allows student loan payments to be treated as elective deferrals for purposes of matching contributions. Under the bill, an employer would be permitted to make matching student loan contributions under 401(k) and 403(b) plans. This addresses a problem facing millions of employees who are so buried in student debt that they cannot afford to make retirement contributions and thus lose out on matching contributions offered by their employer. For example, if an employer provides a 50 percent match and an employee makes student loan payments of $1,000, the employer would make a $500 contribution to the plan on behalf of that employee.
There are a whole host of other provisions. For example, the bill would help part-time employees become eligible to participate in their employer’s retirement plan, addressing a key concern under today’s rules. Also, the bill would help our nation’s military spouses become covered by retirement plans despite having to move so much to support their spouses. And the bill establishes a lost-and-found registry to help individuals find retirement benefits that they have earned but lost track of.
With bipartisan cooperation toward solving problems seeming impossible to find, the SECURE 2.0 bill represents important progress that benefits working families across the country. The Senate has its own version making its way through the legislative process. Those following these bills closely expect that these bills will be combined and probably included in a broader legislative package.
Regardless of how it comes to be, let’s hope that lawmakers continue to work together on such a critical issue as financial empowerment for everyday Americans.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.