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

Yahooa day 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

UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran could again begin enriching uranium in ‘matter of months'
UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran could again begin enriching uranium in ‘matter of months'

CNN

time20 minutes ago

  • CNN

UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran could again begin enriching uranium in ‘matter of months'

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium 'in a matter of months,' contradicting President Donald Trump's claims the US set Tehran's ambitions back by decades. Rafael Grossi's comments appear to support an early assessment from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, first reported on by CNN, which suggests the United States' strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites last week did not destroy the core components of its nuclear program, and likely only set it back by months. While the final military and intelligence assessment has yet to come, Trump has repeatedly claimed to have 'completely and totally obliterated' Tehran's nuclear program. The 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran began earlier this month when Israel launched an unprecedented attack it said aimed at preventing Tehran developing a nuclear bomb. Iran has insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. The US then struck three key Iranian nuclear sites before a ceasefire began. The extent of the damage to Tehran's nuclear program has been hotly debated ever since. US military officials have in recent days provided some new information about the planning of the strikes, but offered no new evidence of their effectiveness against Iran's nuclear program. Following classified briefings this week, Republican lawmakers acknowledged the US strikes may not have eliminated all of Iran's nuclear materials – but argued that this was never part of the military's mission. Asked about the different assessments, Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CBS's 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan': 'This hourglass approach in weapons of mass destruction is not a good idea.' 'The capacities they have are there. They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that. But as I said, frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there,' he told Brennan, according to a transcript released ahead of the broadcast. 'It is clear that there has been severe damage, but it's not total damage,' Grossi went on to say. 'Iran has the capacities there; industrial and technological capacities. So if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again.' Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes. 'We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending.' CNN has asked the White House for comment on Grossi's claims. Grossi stressed the need for the IAEA to be granted access to Iran, to assess nuclear activities. He said Iran had been disclosing information to the agency up until recent Israeli and US strikes, but that 'there were some things that they were not clarifying to us.' 'In this sensitive area of the number of centrifuges and the amount of material, we had perfect view,' he said. 'What I was concerned about is that there were other things that were not clear. For example, we had found traces of uranium in some places in Iran, which were not the normal declared facilities. And we were asking for years, why did we find these traces of enriched uranium in place x, y or z? And we were simply not getting credible answers.' The initial Pentagon assessment said Tehran may have moved some of the enriched uranium out of the sites before they were attacked but Trump has insisted nothing was moved. 'It's logical to presume that when they announce that they are going to be taking protective measures, this could be part of it (moving the material). But, as I said, we don't know where this material could be, or if part of it could have been, you know, under the attack during those 12 days,' Grossi told Brennan. Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program. Iran's parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons. CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed reporting.

If Bezos' Wealth Was Evenly Distributed Across the U.S., How Much Would We Get?
If Bezos' Wealth Was Evenly Distributed Across the U.S., How Much Would We Get?

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

If Bezos' Wealth Was Evenly Distributed Across the U.S., How Much Would We Get?

It's no secret that Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, is one of the richest people in the world. According to Forbes Real Time Billionaires List, Bezos tends to hover in the top five wealthiest humans on the planet, after Elon Musk and in the company of Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page and Warren Buffett. Read More: Find Out: But what if one day, Bezos decided to dismantle his empire and liquidate his assets in order to give everyone in the United States an equal share? GOBankingRates is checking the math to see how much money every American would have if every citizen got a piece of Bezos' wealth. Based on the U.S. Census Bureau's tracking and data, the total American population is at 341,891,315 as of June 2025. The numbers show that about one American is born every 9 seconds while another one dies about every eleven seconds, so the rate of growth and loss are fairly in step with one another. Theoretically, each of these people would receive an equal share of Bezos' fortune in a perfect world under ideal circumstances. In the real world, that could prove to be a Herculean task; however, for the sake of experimentation, everyone accounted for in the population will receive the same amount of Bezos' wealth at the same time on the same day. Discover Next: Forbes lists Jeff Bezos' net worth at $237 billion as of this writing, and he is considered to be one of the few people to be included in the $100 Billion Club. Using that figure and dividing it by the population of America, each person in the country would receive a sum in the range of $693.20. While that might not be a lot of money to some in the current economy, it would act similarly to a stimulus check or perhaps a holiday bonus. Bezos started from fairly humble beginnings and is now one of the richest people in the world. It might sound impossible to ever reach a salary that could cultivate wealth like Bezos', but it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility if you build for the future, not just for today. 'Bezos doesn't make decisions based on what looks good this quarter; he's thinking in five, 10, sometimes even 20-year timelines,' said Jamie Wall, a personal finance strategist at Gamblizard. 'Amazon didn't turn a profit until 2003, nearly a decade after it launched and seven years after going public.' 'For regular people, this means not basing every financial or career decision on short-term wins,' Wall concluded. 'Gaining wealth isn't a sprint, it's a marathon.' More From GOBankingRates 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money This article originally appeared on If Bezos' Wealth Was Evenly Distributed Across the U.S., How Much Would We Get?

William Blair Sticks with Buy as Blend Labs (BLND) Sharpens SaaS Focus
William Blair Sticks with Buy as Blend Labs (BLND) Sharpens SaaS Focus

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

William Blair Sticks with Buy as Blend Labs (BLND) Sharpens SaaS Focus

Blend Labs Inc. (NYSE:BLND) is one of the 10 best debt-free IT penny stocks to buy. On May 28, William Blair analyst Dylan Becker reiterated a Buy rating on Blend Labs (BLND), though he didn't assign a price target to the stock. In Becker's view, the company's recent decision to divest its Title365 business marks an important strategic change. By moving away from the more services-heavy segment, Blend is now better positioned to operate as a focused vertical SaaS company. A customer using the latest mobile banking app, taking control of their financial future. Becker notes that this step should have a positive impact on Blend's financial profile, particularly by improving gross margins and bringing them more in line with those of software-first businesses. More importantly, the move allows management to sharpen its focus on the core business—developing digital tools for banking products like mortgages and consumer loans. With this narrowed focus, Becker expects Blend to strengthen its position in the market over time, particularly as it looks to deliver improved customer experiences in the financial services space. While broader mortgage market remains challenging, he sees potential for the company to unlock improved profitability and generate stronger revenue growth from 2025 onwards. Blend Labs Inc. (NYSE:BLND) offers a cloud-based banking software platform that simplifies and automates consumer banking experiences, including mortgage applications, personal loans, and deposit account openings. While we acknowledge the potential of BLND as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: The Best and Worst Dow Stocks for the Next 12 Months and 10 Best Tech Stocks to Buy According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

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