Only one out of an estimated 44 financial abuse cases receive service in the formal system (help other than from family and friend networks). This obscures the labor involved in helping older victims of family financial abuse. Older adults are reluctant to report to authorities to avoid embarrassment or menacing perpetrator’s aggravation.
Despite the private and hidden nature of the problem, some extreme cases of family financial exploitation have made public headlines. In January, Maxine McManaman, the Transportation Security Administration’s assistant federal security director, was arrested on charges of financially exploiting a family member with dementia. Eight years ago, a case of financial exploitation by David Vanzo, a “caregiving” son, made headlines due to suspicion of his mother being dead in a wheelchair when he brought her to a bank to withdraw money. In 2011, actor Mickey Rooney testified before a special U.S. Senate committee recounting his own financial exploitation by family members.
Unlike policies protecting vulnerable children, policies protecting vulnerable older adults have historically lacked direction, assessment tools, national reporting system, federal response and, importantly, funding. The Credit for Caring Act, introduced in January 2024, would give qualifying caregivers, of whom there is an estimated 53 million, a federal tax credit of up to $5,000. But this credit is not associated with caregiving related to financial abuse. It is associated with frailty and illness-related caregiving, aggregated by the National Institute on Aging in a 27-item caregiver task list.
There is no such organized list, enumeration of tasks or estimate of caregiving associated with elder family financial exploitation despite intervening family and friends spending countless hours of personal time, time off work and personal financial resources, to help and care for exploited aging family members. For some reason, our concept of caregiving does not include the care provided to help victimized older people. Yet, $28.3 billion is lost annuall y by older victims to financial exploitation of which 72 percent is lost to family and friends. In many cases, caregivers perform financial abuse-related caregiving in addition to illness-related caregiving as many perpetrators take advantage of the older person’s deteriorating health to start exploiting.
One might ask, isn’t helping victimized older people what families are supposed to do? Well, isn’t illness-related caregiving what families are supposed to do, too? In fact, many groups do not call illness-related caregiving “caregiving.” They call it being there for your family. Still, distinct policies reward illness-related caregiving valued at $600 billion annually. Consider the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Caregiver Advise, Record and Enable Act as examples.
When older adults lose money and resources, taxpayers also lose. Older victims may need to draw on public programs such as Medicaid to fund their costly long-term care because their own resources were depleted by financial exploitation.
By 2035, older people will outnumber children at 23.4 percent versus 19.8 percent for the first time in the nation’s history. At the same time, an estimated $53 trillion in wealth will be transferred from households in the baby boomer generation to heirs and offspring. These conditions foretell disputes over what happens to the deceased person’s money and property, and foreshadow financial exploitation. We may all know someone with a related family scenario.
We need formalized policies that acknowledge caregiving labor related to elder family financial exploitation. The Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2023 would allow “for the delay of the redemption of a security” if an investment company “reasonably believes the redemption involves the financial exploitation of an individual age 65 or older.”
Such policies are a step in the right direction. Estimates and policies related to informal caregiving associated with family financial abuse should account for efforts aside from health care as family members navigate adult protective services, social services, the courts, law enforcement, financial institutions, attorneys, community-based agencies, Area Agencies on Aging, long-term care settings and many more.
Kilaberia is an assistant professor at New York University’s Silver School of Social Work and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project.
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.