Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump’s plan for Social Security risks undermining its future

Medicare Health Insurance Card. Social Security Card with Stethoscope and pen
Bill Oxford/Getty Images

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised to end taxes on Social Security benefits. Many seniors naturally responded positively to this idea, and he was rewarded with their votes. It’s easy to see why many would agree with this idea on the surface. After all, workers already pay taxes on their earnings throughout their careers. These taxes are used to fund future Social Security benefits. Retirees would be excused for thinking that they’re being taxed twice.

However, the reality is far more complicated — and potentially disastrous. By law, taxes on Social Security benefits are funneled back into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Ending this revenue stream would have serious financial consequences, accelerating the insolvency of both programs. This would put the benefits that millions of American seniors depend on at grave risk.


The numbers tell a bleak story. A Wall Street Journal piece notes the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that ending taxes on Social Security benefits would reduce revenue to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds by between $1.6 trillion and $1.8 trillion over the next decade. This would accelerate the insolvency of Social Security by a full year, bringing its projected bankruptcy date to 2032. Medicare would fare even worse, facing insolvency in 2030 — six years earlier than current projections.

The consequences of these changes would be dire. Without enough funding, Social Security and Medicare would face catastrophic benefit cuts, forcing millions of seniors to suffer due to reduced incomes and limited access to health care. These programs were designed as safety nets, but Trump’s proposals would rip giant holes in that fabric, leaving some of America’s most vulnerable citizens exposed.

Trump’s promise to end taxes on Social Security benefits is just one piece of a broader campaign to reduce taxes on income such as tips and overtime pay. While these ideas may seem attractive to the average taxpayer, together they threaten to explode the federal deficit. These policies ignore the critical role tax revenue plays in sustaining essential programs and ensuring their long-term viability.

The short-term appeal of these proposals must be carefully balanced against their long-term consequences. While seniors might save a small amount initially, the financial foundation of Social Security and Medicare would crumble, creating a much greater economic burden in the future. Popular promises often carry hidden costs, and in this case, the cost would be the stability of the very programs that seniors rely on.

The debate over taxing Social Security benefits raises legitimate questions about fairness in the tax code. However, solutions that undermine the solvency of critical programs are plainly reckless. Instead of proposing policies that threaten Social Security and Medicare’s future, Trump should focus on strengthening these systems to ensure they can support current and future generations.

Trump’s plan played well on the campaign trail, but its implications are clear: His promises risk dismantling the foundations of America’s social safety net. For the millions of Americans who depend on these programs, that is a gamble they cannot afford.

Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.


Read More

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less