logo
Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill

Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill

CNN11 hours ago

President Donald Trump is using false claims to promote his massive domestic policy bill.
In a White House speech on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed Medicaid is 'left the same' by the bill. In fact, both the version of the legislation that was narrowly passed by the House in May and the latest version now being contemplated by the Senate contain major Medicaid policy changes and funding cuts that are expected to result in millions of people losing insurance coverage.
Trump also falsely claimed that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security benefits. The legislation would not actually fulfill Trump's campaign promise to completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, though it would temporarily give seniors a substantially bigger tax deduction. And Trump falsely claimed that 'there'll be a 68% tax increase' if Congress doesn't approve the bill; there is no credible estimate of anything close to a 68% hike.
One caveat: since Congress has not yet sent a final bill to Trump's desk, it's possible that legislators will make major changes before the Senate votes. But Trump's claims are inaccurate with regard to the House-approved version and the version senators are considering.
Asked for comment on the president's false claims, the White House provided an on-record response that touted the benefits of the bill but did not defend Trump's specific assertions.
'The One, Big, Beautiful Bill is chock-full of the policies that the American people elected President Trump – and Congressional Republicans – to implement,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a Friday email.
Here is a fact check.
Trump claimed in his Thursday address that people are 'not going to feel any' of the spending cuts included in the bill. He then said, 'Your Medicaid is left alone. It's left the same.'
Facts First: Trump's claim about Medicaid is false. The version of the bill that was passed by the House last month would make multiple significant changes to Medicaid and would reduce federal funding for the program by hundreds of billions of dollars. The legislation's Medicaid provisions are expected to result in 7.8 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to more than 71 million low-income Americans, including children, people with disabilities, senior citizens, parents and other adults.
The House bill would require certain able-bodied adults without dependent children to work, volunteer or participate in other activities for at least 80 hours a month to retain their coverage. It would also enact several provisions that would make it more difficult to sign up for or reenroll in Medicaid. And it would reduce federal support to certain states that provide state-funded coverage to undocumented immigrants.
Regardless of the merits of these policies, they are major changes that would not leave Medicaid 'the same.' All told, the changes would reduce federal support for the program by roughly $800 billion over a decade, the Congressional Budget Office projects; the Senate version of the bill has yet to be finalized but contains many similar provisions.
Asked for comment on Trump's claim that Medicaid would be 'left the same' by the bill, a White House official provided background material that did not try to corroborate the claim. Rather, the White House defended the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid – saying, for example, that the majority of people the Congressional Budget Office estimated would lose Medicaid under the bill 'are able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64 who have no dependents and work less than 20 hours per week.'
Trump campaigned in 2024 on a promise of no more taxes on Social Security benefits. On Thursday, he said the bill is 'so good' because it includes 'hundreds of things' that will benefit Americans – including 'no tax' on Social Security. He then said in a social media post on Friday that the legislation left Republicans 'on the precipice' of delivering achievements including 'NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR OUR SENIORS.'
Facts First: Trump's claim about Social Security is false. The bill would temporarily beef up seniors' standard tax deduction, but it would not completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits.
The House-approved version would give people age 65 and older a $4,000 increase to their standard deduction from 2025 through 2028, whether or not they are receiving Social Security payments yet. The Senate version would provide a $6,000 boost to seniors. In both versions, the benefit would start to phase out for individuals with incomes of more than $75,000 and couples with incomes of more than $150,000.
This measure is a move in the direction of Trump's campaign promise to end taxes on Social Security benefits; lawmakers could not eliminate those taxes under the rules of budget reconciliation, which Republicans are using to advance the package by a simple majority vote and without Democratic support in the Senate. But whatever the reason, Trump's claim that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security, period, remains incorrect.
Asked for comment on the Trump claim, the White House asserted in its background material that, under the bill, the vast majority of seniors receiving Social Security income would pay no tax on that income. Trump's own assertion was bigger.
Trump warned Thursday of the consequences of allowing the temporary tax cuts from his 2017 tax law to expire rather than making them permanent by passing this new bill – and he invoked a figure he has frequently deployed when promoting the 2025 legislation.
'If the bill doesn't pass, there'll be a 68% tax increase,' he said. 'Think of that: 68%.'
Trump again repeated the '68%' warning during Friday remarks at the White House.
Facts First: Trump's claim is false. There is no credible basis for the claim that failing to pass the bill would result in anywhere near a 68% tax increase. One analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center think tank found that taxes would rise by an average of about 7.5% in 2026 if Trump's bill didn't pass. Asked for comment by CNN, the White House did not attempt to address the '68%' figure even on condition of anonymity; it also provided no comment to other fact-checkers earlier in the month.
In their articles, PolitiFact and FactCheck.org noted that it's possible Trump has been wrongly describing a different Tax Policy Center estimate. The think tank found that about 64% of households would pay more taxes in 2026 if the 2017 law's temporary cuts in individual income tax and the estate tax were allowed to expire.
That's clearly not the same as saying Americans will face a 64% (or 68%) tax increase. And this wasn't a one-time slip of the tongue by the president.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Musk Rages as Trump Tax Bill Slashes Electric Vehicle Credits
Musk Rages as Trump Tax Bill Slashes Electric Vehicle Credits

Bloomberg

time18 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Musk Rages as Trump Tax Bill Slashes Electric Vehicle Credits

Elon Musk slammed the US Senate's latest version of President Donald Trump's multi-trillion dollar tax bill Saturday, raging online that the cuts to electric vehicle and other clean energy credits would be 'incredibly destructive' to the country. Musk, the chief executive officer of Tesla Inc. and SpaceX, posted on his social media platform X about the bill, which the Senate was planning to put to an initial vote on Saturday. Musk recently left Trump's side after working for several months as the head of Trump's so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

Colorado, Boulder officials answer community concerns on immigration, wildfires and more
Colorado, Boulder officials answer community concerns on immigration, wildfires and more

CBS News

time19 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Colorado, Boulder officials answer community concerns on immigration, wildfires and more

Saturday, officials from the State of Colorado, Boulder County, and Boulder Police took time to listen to their constituents and answer questions they had. "It's no secret that we had a lot going on in Boulder. We know what's going on in the country," said Boulder Police Chief Stephen Redfearn. State representative Junie Joseph hosted the town hall and said there is a lot on the minds of Boulderites. "Conversation about public safety, there's a lot of conversation when it comes to immigration, wildfires and the unhoused," said Joseph. CBS They were joined by Boulder County Sheriff Curtis Johnson and Boulder County Chief Deputy District Attorney Christian Gardner-Wood at the Canyon Theater inside the Boulder Public Library. "This was a forum and an opportunity for community members to come and ask questions and discuss issues that are most important to them," said Joseph. Dozens of people asked about issues affecting their community, especially public safety, in light of the recent terrorist attack on the Pearl Street Mall. Redfearn says they are working hard to prevent crime and violence, but their most valuable tool in that endeavor is an engaged public. "See something, say something is still true. We don't know the communities, we don't know your block like you do. And so, we just want people to know that 24/7 we want to hear and see from you," said Redfearn. The conversation was an hour and a half, but very easily could have gone longer. Officials say taking part in opportunities like this will help them better serve the public "It's always beneficial. We want to be accessible and not some guy in an office somewhere that's not willing to take questions," said Redfearn. "It's not easy to have those really, really tough discussions, because sometimes as elected officials, we don't have the answer, but they need to know that we are here, we hear them and we are in the trenches with them, and we will continue to fight to support and advocate for our community," said Joseph.

Better Dividend Stock: Kinder Morgan vs. Enterprise Products Partners
Better Dividend Stock: Kinder Morgan vs. Enterprise Products Partners

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Better Dividend Stock: Kinder Morgan vs. Enterprise Products Partners

Kinder Morgan is one of the largest midstream operators in North America. Enterprise Products Partners is one of the largest midstream operators in North America. One of these two midstream giants has a better track record of reliably paying investors for sticking around. 10 stocks we like better than Kinder Morgan › If you are looking at Kinder Morgan (NYSE: KMI) and its 4.1% dividend yield, you should also consider Enterprise Products Partners (NYSE: EPD) and its 6.8% distribution yield. But the reason for preferring Enterprise over Kinder Morgan is only partly to do with the yield, particularly if you are a dividend-focused investor. Here's what you need to know to decide between these two midstream giants. From a big-picture perspective, both Kinder Morgan and Enterprise Products Partners operate in the energy sector. This sector is known for being volatile, thanks to the huge impact that oil and natural gas prices have on the financial results of most energy companies. But not all energy companies, since Kinder Morgan and Enterprise are largely toll takers, charging fees for moving oil and natural gas around the world. Essentially, these midstream players sit between the upstream (energy production) and the downstream (chemicals and refining). The pipelines, storage, and transportation assets they own generate reliable fees, with the price of the commodities moving through their systems far less important than demand for the services they provide. And demand for energy tends to be fairly high even when energy prices are low. So both Kinder Morgan and Enterprise have attractive and reliable business models in what is an otherwise volatile industry. From this perspective, Kinder Morgan and Enterprise are very similar. They are also very similar when it comes to the size of their asset portfolios, which are among the largest in North America. In fact, both businesses have market caps in the $60 billion to $70 billion range. But they aren't interchangeable. Midstream investments are generally considered for the reliable income stream they provide to investors. The lofty dividend yields of both Kinder Morgan and Enterprise are part of that story. However, there's a back history that investors shouldn't ignore. In 2016, the energy sector was going through a difficult period. Enterprise increased its distribution. Kinder Morgan cut its distribution by 75%. To be fair, it was the right move for the company, but it was a terrible outcome for income investors. The real problem, however, is that just a couple of months prior to the cut, management was guiding for a dividend increase of as much as 10%. The cash freed up from the dividend cut was used to strengthen Kinder Morgan's balance sheet and to invest in growth opportunities. So the cut made the business stronger, with management eventually getting dividend growth back on track. But even here there was a problem. It set out an aggressive dividend growth schedule and then fell short of that plan during the difficult energy market in 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic. In other words, Kinder Morgan has let dividend investors down during each of the most recent energy industry downturns. Enterprise increased its distribution modestly in 2020, but that is basically what it has done for years. In fact, at this point, Enterprise has reliably increased its distribution year in and year out for 26 consecutive years. Kinder Morgan looks like it is in much better financial and business shape today than it was in 2016. And the 2020 dividend miss was reasonable, too, given the uncertainty at the time. But if being able to trust how the management teams of the investments you own address what's important to you, Enterprise will be the better investment option. And you'll collect a higher yield while you're at it. Before you buy stock in Kinder Morgan, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Kinder Morgan wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $713,547!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $966,931!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,062% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 177% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 23, 2025 Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Kinder Morgan. The Motley Fool recommends Enterprise Products Partners. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Better Dividend Stock: Kinder Morgan vs. Enterprise Products Partners was originally published by The Motley Fool

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store