Donald Trump Accused of 'Exaggerated Claims' Over Social Security
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The Trump administration has "been peddling false and exaggerated claims" about taxation on Social Security benefits, according to a think tank in Washington, D.C.
Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment via email outside regular working hours.
Why It Matters
Earlier this month, President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law. The legislation creates a new expanded standard deduction for taxpayers aged 65 and up, and it follows Trump's long-standing promise to nix federal taxes levied on Social Security income.
Trump, the White House and the Social Security Administration (SSA) have promoted the expanded deduction as eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits for almost all seniors. In a June appearance on Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, Trump said the bill meant "no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime." However, experts have said the legislation's touted benefits for seniors are overstated and may hasten the insolvency of Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
President Donald Trump speaks with the media at Trump Turnberry golf club in Scotland on July 28.
President Donald Trump speaks with the media at Trump Turnberry golf club in Scotland on July 28.
Christopher Furlong/GETTY
What To Know
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act raises the standard deduction for seniors aged 65 and older by up to $6,000 between 2025 and 2028. While it does not directly alter how Social Security benefits are taxed, it could indirectly reduce the amount of those benefits subject to federal taxation.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), almost half of seniors already didn't owe taxes on their Social Security benefits under previous law.
"Since the substantial majority of low- and middle-income seniors didn't pay income taxes, the new deduction will provide no benefit to these households—doing nothing to help them afford their health care, housing, and other critical living expenses," the think tank wrote in a report published on Monday.
Though the deduction begins to phase out for individuals with incomes over $75,000 and for married couples earning more than $150,000, the Tax Policy Center found that seniors with incomes between $80,000 and $270,000—representing a quarter of people over 65—receive almost two-thirds of the deduction's benefits.
While higher-income seniors are the primary beneficiaries of the tax break, most won't see a complete elimination of taxes on Social Security income under the new law, according to the CBPP.
"For the vast majority of these higher-income taxpayers, the tax on their Social Security benefits would be reduced but not eliminated," the think tank reported.
The deduction also excludes beneficiaries under age 65. Social Security beneficiaries can begin collecting at 62, while those collecting survivor benefits can claim even earlier.
Both the SSA and the White House have touted the benefits of the legislation. Citing analysis from the Council of Economic Advisers, the White House said 88 percent of all seniors who received Social Security would pay "NO TAX on their Social Security benefits," adding that the Senate proposal's $6,000 senior deduction was "estimated to benefit 33.9 million seniors, including seniors not claiming Social Security."
Prior to the bill being signed by the president, the SSA sent an email celebrating the legislation's passage through Congress. The email said 90 percent of Social Security beneficiaries would "no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits" and that the bill would provide "meaningful and immediate relief to seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to our nation's economy."
The CBPP report also warned that the new law could worsen the financial outlook of Social Security and Medicare. The think tank said the tax cuts would reduce the revenue generated from Social Security benefit taxation by about $30 billion annually, accelerating insolvency of both trust funds to 2032—a year earlier than previously projected.
According to the latest Social Security Trustees report, the program's two trust funds—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance funds—when combined are projected to reach insolvency by 2034. At that point, benefits would rely entirely on incoming payroll taxes, resulting in an automatic cut of about 21 percent unless Congress intervened.
What People Are Saying
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "The Trump Administration has been peddling false and exaggerated claims about the harmful Republican megabill's effects on the taxation of Social Security benefits, including in a blast email from the Social Security Administration. The new law doesn't help most low- and middle-income seniors, and it depletes the Social Security trust funds faster. Moreover, the Administration's misleading claims shouldn't distract from how the law's deep cuts to health care and food assistance will leave millions of seniors with low incomes worse off."
The White House said in news release on July 21: "The largest tax cut in history for working- and middle-class Americans—including No Tax on Tips, No Tax on Overtime, and No Tax on Social Security—is now the law of the land, along with unprecedented tax relief for small businesses, farmers, workers, and families."
What Happens Next
The expanded deduction for seniors is set to take effect beginning with the 2025 tax year and expire after 2028 unless extended by future legislation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alabama farmer sees new interest within days of Trump's tomato tariff — and says former trade deal ‘never worked' for US
With President Trump's latest tariff announcement, the price of tomatoes could soon be going up in the U.S. On July 14, the Trump Administration announced a 17% tariff on tomatoes imported from Mexico, ending a decades-long trade deal that kept the price of importing tomatoes down in the U.S. Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it 'Mexico remains one of our greatest allies, but for far too long our farmers have been crushed by unfair trade practices that undercut pricing on produce like tomatoes,' said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick in the press release. 'That ends today.' And while some Americans may not be in support of additional tariffs levied against America's international trade partners, several U.S. farmers stand in strong support of Trump's latest trade move. 'Been two days now and we've actually had a lot more calls' For decades, U.S. and Mexican tomato operations worked under a trade agreement that allowed for relatively easy importation of Mexican tomatoes into U.S. markets. The deal was meant to protect American tomato farmers, but many believe the old trade agreement didn't do enough. 'There's been loopholes that the Mexican tomato producers have taken advantage of and continue to price dump, or lower the prices below the cost of production here in the United States and in Alabama," Blake Thaxton, executive director of the Alabama Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, told WVTM 13 News. Chad Smith of Smith Tomato Farms in St. Clair County, Alabama echoed Thaxton's concerns with the old trade deal with Mexico. 'If they send the tomatoes over and it's supposed to be a set price and they need to move tomatoes, well, they may just give a load of bell peppers for free for them to take the tomatoes. So, it's never really worked,' said Smith. American tomato farmers had long felt as if they were hard-pressed to compete with the imports from Mexico, but several of them now see better times ahead with Trump's latest tariff news. 'It's only been two days now and we've actually had a lot more calls from people who have an interest in doing business," said Smith. 'And the price hasn't even changed.' As for Thaxton, he believes the potential of a sustainable future for U.S. tomato farmers is important. 'Food security is national security, and we need to be able to produce our own food here in the United States,' said Thaxton. Read more: Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can How the new tariff may affect your wallet While some American farmers are hopeful that the tomato tariff will impact their bottom line in a positive way, there's a concern that the changing policy will lead to higher prices at the grocery store. After all, the costs of producing tomatoes are higher in the U.S., thanks in part to American farms paying their workers up to 10 times more per hour than farm workers in Mexico. Thaxton believes the rising tomato costs won't be too dramatic, but other experts appear to be more concerned. In fact, some predict the new tomato tariff could push prices up by 10%. Since American farms face significantly higher production costs than Mexican growers — this includes wages, land, regulation, insurance, property taxes and equipment — these costs may be passed along to American consumers at the grocery store. At this moment, it's tough to predict the exact outcome that the tariff will have on the U.S. tomato market. While it looks like the tariff could help American farmers, it's unclear whether or not it will help American wallets. What to read next Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Here are 5 simple ways to grow rich with real estate if you don't want to play landlord. And you can even start with as little as $10 Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Stay in the know. Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise sent straight to your inbox every week for free. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
New York Post
12 minutes ago
- New York Post
Three killed in Russia as Ukraine takes aim at Putin's oil and military sites in retaliatory strikes
Kyiv blasted Russia with a barrage of drone strikes overnight, killing at least three people in retaliation for one of Moscow's deadliest attacks of the more than three-year-old war. Drone storage sites and oil refineries bankrolling Russian strongman Vladimir Putin's invasion into Ukraine were targeted, Ukrainian military officials said. Among the casualties was a guard at an industrial facility near the Ukrainian border. Further from the frontline, a woman died in a drone strike and an elderly man was crushed by drone debris that fell on his house, according to field reports. 4 A Ukrainian drone sparked a massive fire at the Novokuybyshevsk oil refinery in Russia. social media; east2west news The Kyiv offensive also sparked a massive fire at the Novokuybyshevsk oil refinery, leading to significant damage to the facility. A thick orange ball of flames and plumes of smoke resembling that of a nuclear explosion could be seen, Russian media reported. Meanwhile, two Ukrainians were killed Saturday morning in Kherson, north of Crimea, according to the head of the Regional Military Administration. Another 11 civilians were wounded in an overnight attack on Kharkiv, Ukrainian's second largest city, near the Russian border, where a drone slammed a large residential building. Ukraine's retaliatory strikes came after a day of mourning in the capital following one of the deadliest assaults of the conflict – where 31 were killed in Kyiv — including five children — and 150 were wounded. 'It's impossible to justify what Russia is doing,' Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky said on social media. 4 Zelensky laid flowers in front of a residential building in Kyiv after Thursday's deadly attack on the capital. UKRAINIAN PRESIDENTIAL PRESS SERVICE/AFP via Getty Images 'There was no military purpose at all,' he added about Thursday's devastating assault that targeted residential buildings. The relentless Russian attacks continued this week after President Trump gave Putin an Aug. 8 deadline to agree to a cease-fire deal aimed at ending the escalating war. Trump said special envoy Steve Witkoff is headed to Russia, to push Putin to end the war. But some talks had already taken place earlier this week with the Kremlin and 'no progress' had been made, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. 4 A woman stands near burned-out cars in Druzhkivka, Ukraine, after a Russian drone attack overnight. via REUTERS Trump is threatening new economic sanctions against the Kremlin if progress stalls, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) ready to move on a bill introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and cosponsored by more than 80 senators. 'Only sanctions will convince Moscow to genuinely work for peace,' Zelensky said in a video on X. 4 Crews completed search and rescue operations Friday at this residential building in Kyiv hit in Thursday's deadly attack. Maxym Marusenko/NurPhoto/Shutterstock In the wake of the fast-approaching Friday deadline, Putin has proposed a new negotiation framework, the Kyiv Independent reported. The Russian tyrant floated the creation of three working groups toward peace talks — but insisted the format would remain behind closed doors. 'It was agreed that we could hold these negotiations without cameras, without any political nonsense — in a calm manner and with a focus on finding compromises,' Putin said. With Post wires
New York Post
12 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump administration freezes $339 million in UCLA grants, accuses school of rights violations
The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations related to antisemitism, affirmative action, and women's sports, according to a person familiar with the matter. The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges, but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Several federal agencies notified UCLA this week that they were suspending grants over civil rights concerns, including $240 million from the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, according to the person, who spoke about internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. 5 The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations, reports say. AP The Trump administration recently announced that the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation. The National Science Foundation said in a statement that it informed UCLA that it was suspending funding awards because the school isn't in line with the agency's priorities. UCLA's chancellor, Julio Frenk, called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' 5 The Trump administration recently announced that the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. AP 'With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty, and staff,' he said in a statement. The Department of Energy said in its letter it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. Affirmative action in college admissions was outlawed in California in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023. 5 UCLA's chancellor, Julio Frenk, called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' Getty Images for Aurora Humanitarian Initiative 5 The Department of Energy said in its letter that it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. AP The letter said the school has taken steps that amount to 'a transparent attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name,' disadvantaging white, Jewish, and Asian American applicants. It also said UCLA fails to promote an environment free from antisemitism and discriminates against women by allowing transgender women to compete on women's teams. Frenk said that in its letter, the federal government 'claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons' to freeze the funding, but 'this far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.' 5 The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges, but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Getty Images Earlier this week, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university, arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students' access to some areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps. The university has said that it's committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations.
