Experts: Analysis shows Trump proposal would "dramatically worsen Social Security’s finances"

Marin Scotten
Mon, October 21, 2024 

Donald Trump | Social Security Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images

Social Security funds could run out in the next six years if former President Donald Trump wins in November, according to a new report from the bipartisan group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The program's funding is already in crisis and expected to become insolvent as early as 2033. Trump’s policies would add over $2.3 trillion to Social Security’s deficit between 2026 and 2033 and — and cause a 33% cut to benefits in 2035, the report found.

“We find President Trump’s campaign proposals would dramatically worsen Social Security’s finances,” the report released Monday states.


Many of Trump’s proposals would “widen Social Security’s cash deficits,” the report reads. Currently, 40% of Social Security recipients pay taxes on some portion of their benefit and that money goes back into the program. Trump has proposed to cut the taxation of all Social Security benefits, which would dramatically weaken the program’s longevity.

The Republican nominee has also promised to cut taxes on tips and overtime pay, which could cost Social Security anywhere from $150 million to $1 trillion, the report found. His proposed import tariffs and mass deportations of undocumented immigrants would also impact the program, which benefits over 71 million people.

“If President Trump’s campaign agenda were enacted in full, we estimate it would shrink that window by one-third, to only six years," the report said.

The watchdog group found that Vice President Kamala Harris’ proposed policies would neither accelerate or slow Social Security’s funding trajectory.

Despite Social Security’s uncertain future, the topic hasn’t come up much in this year’s election conversations. Both candidates have vaguely pledged to protect the program, but neither has shared a detailed plan for doing so.

Trump Proposals Could Lead to a 33% Cut in Social Security Benefits

Michael Rainey
Mon, October 21, 2024

Social Security will be forced to cut benefits by an estimated 23% in 10 years if Congress fails to prop up the program’s trust funds before then, but a new analysis from a budget watchdog group warns that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposals would move up the day of reckoning by as much as three years while forcing an even larger benefit reduction.

The report from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates for debt and deficit reduction, found that several of Trump’s proposals would widen Social Security’s projected financial shortfall. Ending taxes on Social Security benefits would reduce the program’s cash balance by an estimated $950 billion between 2026 and 2035. Eliminating federal income taxes on tips and overtime income would cost about $900 billion over the same time period, while the combination of more restrictive immigration rules, which would reduce the number of migrant workers paying into the system, and higher tariffs, which would increase the cost of many goods and thereby increase annual cost-of-living adjustments, would cost about $400 billion.

Altogether, the proposals would reduce the cash balance in the Social Security system by roughly $2.3 trillion over a decade, according to the group’s “central estimate” of the effects of Trump’s plans. (The “low” estimate for the revenue loss is $1.3 trillion over 10 years, while the “high” estimate is $2.8 trillion.)

As a result, the Social Security system would be forced to cut benefits in fiscal year 2031 rather than in 2034, as currently projected. “In other words,” the group said, “the trust funds would be insolvent only six years after the next President takes office instead of nine – reducing the remaining life of the trust fund by one-third.”

Additionally, the size of the benefit cut would increase under Trump’s proposals. The current projected 23% cut — roughly $16,500 a year for a typical dual-income household — would become a 33% cut by 2035.

No plans to bolster Social Security on the table: Neither presidential candidate has offered a plan to improve Social Security’s long-term financial health and avoid the projected benefit cuts. The CRFB analysts did note, however, that Vice President Kamala Harris’s proposals would not have a significant negative effect on the Social Security trust funds.

Harris campaign spokesperson Joe Costello told CBS News that the analysis shows that Trump is a threat to the Social Security system, while the Democratic candidate seeks to safeguard it. “Vice President Harris is committed to protecting Social Security benefits and is the only candidate who will actually fight for seniors, not just pay them lip service on the campaign trail,” Costello said.

Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt rejected the CRFB analysis altogether while arguing without basis that undocumented immigrants are a serious threat to the Social Security system. “The so-called experts at CRFB have been consistently wrong throughout the years,” Leavitt said in a statement. “By unleashing American energy, slashing job-killing regulations, and adopting pro-growth America First tax and trade policies, President Trump will quickly rebuild the greatest economy in history and put Social Security on a stronger footing for generations to come,” she said.

In its analysis, CRFB addressed Trump’s argument about the curative power of energy production, saying, “increased energy exploration is unlikely to have a meaningful effect on Social Security.” And while faster economic growth could indeed help Social Security’s finances, CRFB was skeptical about the potential for Trump’s plans to do so. “[B]ased on available analyses and understanding the effects of President Trump’s agenda on the national debt, it is unlikely his plans would significantly boost the size of the economy, and many estimates find his plans would reduce long-term output,” CRFB said.
chart-Social-Security-trust-fund-CRFB-10212024-600.png




A Trump presidency would drain Social Security's finances faster, budget group warns

Grace Eliza Goodwin
Updated Mon, October 21, 2024 at 2:26 PM MDT·4 min read

Trump's proposals would dramatically worsen Social Security's finances, a nonpartisan budget group is warning.


The group predicts Trump's agenda would push up Social Security insolvency by 3 years.


Harris' proposals would have little impact on Social Security's insolvency timeline, the group says.

Americans are in danger of losing their full benefits by the mid-2030s — and a nonpartisan budget group is warning that if Trump is elected, his policies could push the funding crisis years sooner.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a nonpartisan nonprofit that examines the impacts of fiscal policies, released a report Monday outlining the negative effects it predicts a second Trump presidency would have on Social Security.

"We find President Trump's campaign proposals would dramatically worsen Social Security's finances," the CRFB wrote in its report.

In a recent report, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that a main Social Security trust fund could be exhausted in 2034, meaning that Americans wouldn't get their full benefits.

The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees estimated that the fund would run out a year later, in 2035.

But the CRFB estimates in its report that if Trump wins a second term and enacts his current campaign proposals, those funds would become insolvent three years sooner than the CBO's prediction, in 2031. The CRFB says that would lead to Americans losing 33% of their Social Security benefits across the board by 2035 — a bigger cut compared to the CBO's current 23% projection.

The CRFB estimates that the Republican presidential nominee's promises to stop taxing Social Security benefits, eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, impose tariffs, and increase deportations would worsen Social Security's cash deficits when combined.

But that's not all the damage Trump's proposals would do, according to the CRFB.

In addition to advancing the insolvency timeline and reducing Americans' benefits, Trump's agenda would raise Social Security's ten-year cash shortfall by $2.3 trillion through 2035 and raise its annual shortfall by about 50% in 2035, the CRFB predicts in its report.

For Social Security to restore 75-year solvency under these conditions, current law benefits would need to be decreased by about a third, or revenue would need to increase by half.

The Trump campaign's national press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, disputed the CRFB's report in a statement shared with Business Insider.

"The so-called experts at CRFB have been consistently wrong throughout the years. President Trump delivered on his promise to protect Social Security in his first term, and President Trump will continue to strongly protect Social Security in his second term," Leavitt said in the statement.

"By unleashing American energy, slashing job-killing regulations, and adopting pro-growth America First tax and trade policies, President Trump will quickly rebuild the greatest economy in history and put Social Security on a stronger footing for generations to come, all the while eliminating taxes on Social Security for America's well-deserving seniors," Leavitt continued.

Meanwhile, the CRFB had a rosier outlook when it examined Kamala Harris' policy proposals.

The CRFB says in its report that the Democratic presidential nominee's campaign proposals "would not have large effects on Social Security trust fund solvency." Because Harris's policies would only affect the insolvency timeline by weeks or months, the group did not create a similar report for her, CRFB's senior policy director Marc Goldwein said, according to the Washington Post.

A spokesperson for the Harris-Walz campaign, Joseph Costello, said in a statement shared with BI: "Vice President Harris is committed to protecting Social Security benefits and is the only candidate who will actually fight for seniors, not just pay them lip service on the campaign trail."

Both Trump and Harris have said they would protect Social Security, but neither candidate has laid out specific plans to alleviate the expected $16,500/year cut to benefits that a typical couple retiring just before insolvency could face, the CRFB said in its report.

The promise of Social Security to provide a retirement free from poverty is already not living up to the reality many Americans are facing.

Business Insider previously spoke to over 40 baby boomers and some Gen Xers who said they're struggling to reach a comfortable retirement, and Social Security isn't doing enough to keep them afloat. Some retirees have even had their benefits unexpectedly slashed thanks to murky provisions.

Donald Trump's Proposals Would Hurt Social Security’s Finances, Analysis Finds

Arthur Delaney
Mon, October 21, 2024

The popular Social Security retirement insurance program would run out of money faster if Congress adopted policies promoted by former President Donald Trump, according to a new analysis by an authoritative budget group.

Despite Trump’s promise to protect Social Security, his proposals to cut tax breaks on tips and overtime pay, among other things, would “dramatically worsen” Social Security’s financial position, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Monday.

“Social Security will be only nine years away from insolvency when the next President takes office,” the CRFB said on its website. “If President Trump’s campaign agenda were enacted in full, we estimate it would shrink that window by one-third, to only six years.”

Social Security’s trust fund has enough money to pay full benefits until 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office, at which point incoming revenue from payroll taxes would cover only 83% of benefits. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which opposes large budget deficits, said Trump’s various proposals would hasten the fund’s depletion to 2031.

The harm to Social Security’s finances under Trump’s agenda results from a combination of proposals, some directly related to Social Security, and others not.

Trump’s idea to cut taxes on tipped income, overtime pay and Social Security benefits, for instance, takes away money that funds benefits. Those proposals would reduce funding by as much as $2 trillion over a decade, per the CRFB.

Trump’s proposals for tariffs on imported goods, plus mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, meanwhile, could reduce trust fund revenue by as much as $750 billion. The former policy would impact Social Security by boosting inflation, thereby forcing Social Security to speed up its annual cost-of-living adjustments. Mass deportations would reduce the number of workers paying into the program.

The former president often claims immigrants are a drain on Social Security, but they help the program’s finances by contributing through automatic payroll deductions even when they are ineligible to receive benefits in the future.

Trump has steered the Republican Party away from its past support of cutting Social Security benefits in order to improve the program’s finances, but his ad hoc campaign promises to cut taxes for various voter groups would make it more difficult to balance the program’s projected revenue and spending. Trump has said he would close the gap with faster economic growth, which is a dubious proposition, while Democrats have suggested improving Social Security solvency entirely through taxes on higher earners.

“The so-called experts at CRFB have been consistently wrong throughout the years,” Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in an emailed statement, without pointing to examples of CRFB being wrong.

“The only candidate who poses a threat to the solvency of Social Security is dangerously liberal Kamala Harris — whose mass invasion of millions of illegal aliens will, if they are allowed to stay, cause Social Security to buckle and collapse,” Leavitt said. “By unleashing American energy, slashing job-killing regulations, and adopting pro-growth America First tax and trade policies, President Trump will quickly rebuild the greatest economy in history and put Social Security on a stronger footing for generations to come, all the while eliminating taxes on Social Security for America’s well-deserving seniors.”
View comments (1)




Terms/Privacy Policy
Privacy Dashboard
About Our Ads


Up next





Report: Trump's plans could force Social Security benefit cuts in 6 years
Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press
Updated Mon, October 21, 2024 at 6:18 PM MDT·5 min read
3




A new report by a nonpartisan budget organization in Washington concluded Monday that while neither Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris' or Republican former President Donald Trump's plans would address Social Security's looming insolvency, Trump's would "dramatically worsen" the social safety net program's finances.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget issued an analysis reported in the Washington Post that indicated that Trump's sweeping campaign promises of tax cuts on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits, along with higher prices caused by tariffs and mass deportation efforts he has said he would order would put Social Security in a position of becoming insolvent in as short a time as six years and requiring benefits to be cut by a third if enacted.

Harris' plans, on the other hand, which also include cutting taxes on tips, increasing border security and extending some parts of the 2017 tax cuts would "likely expand Social Security’s deficits," the report said, but proposed minimum wage increases and other measures could boost payroll tax collections. "On net, these changes are likely to modestly increase ten-year deficits and advance insolvency by several weeks or months," the report said in a footnote.

The group, which was founded more than 40 years ago to address and research fiscal policy, has a long history of bipartisan involvement and its current co-chairs include former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, a Democrat.

The analysis comes near the end of a fractious campaign between Harris and Trump, with Michigan a key battleground state where polling shows them effectively tied. Both candidates have promised to protect Social Security's finances but neither has put forward a specific plan for staving off the social safety net's insolvency.

More: Silent mic, 'Black girl magic', crying baby: 1 day in Michigan as Trump, Harris woo it

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in testimony provided to Congress, has estimated that under current payroll tax revenues and expected benefit payments, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund, which pays out to retirees, would likely see benefits cut by 25% beginning in 2034 because of a shortfall and the Disability Insurance trust fund would see benefits cut by 13% in 2065. If the two were combined — which is not allowed under current law but could be to shore up a shortfall — estimated revenues will equal 77% of scheduled payments in 2035, requiring benefits to be reduced by 23% absent an increase in payroll taxes, the CBO said.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget report found that while Harris' proposals would have a negligible effect on that prediction, Trump's would exacerbate it, cutting the time of predicted insolvency for a combined program from fiscal year 2034 to FY 2031 or 2032.

"Upon insolvency, the law calls for limiting Social Security spending to its revenue stream, which we've previously estimated would mean a $16,500 cut in annual benefits for a typical dual-income couple retiring in 2033. CBO estimates that benefits would have to be cut by 23% by 2035 under current law," the analysis said. "Under President Trump's agenda, we estimate that benefit cut would total 33% by 2035, with a range of 29% to 36% depending on the scenario."

The analysis relied on the group's other estimates of the effects of both Harris' and Trump's economic proposals and what they would mean if fully implemented. Those estimates, which included a range of potential outcomes, concluded that Harris' plan could be anywhere from deficit neutral over a decade to worsening it by up to $8.1 trillion, with a central estimate of costing $3.5 trillion.

Trump's plans, the group said, would cost at least $1.45 trillion on the low end and up to $15.15 trillion over a decade, with a central estimate of $7.5 trillion.

In the current analysis, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said ending taxation of Social Security benefits, as Trump has proposed, will remove as much as $950 billion in revenue from the program over a decade, and ending taxes on tips and overtime wages could deny it more than $1 trillion. It also concluded that tariffs promoted by Trump as a way to cut imports and spur manufacturing in the U.S. but which most economists say would increase costs on Americans, as well as plans for a mass deportation of immigrants in the country illegally, could cost the program as much as $750 billion over 10 years.

Workers in the country illegally cannot collect Social Security benefits but still pay billions in payroll taxes, including those that go into bolstering Social Security.

Social Security, while doling out benefits to retirees, their families and disabled workers, is paid for through a trust fund supported largely by current payroll tax collection, not merely those that workers contributed while they were employed. Under the law, if revenues were to fall short of benefits, benefits would have to be reduced unless additional revenue, through taxes or other means, were added to the trust funds.

There were some 2.3 million Social Security beneficiaries living in Michigan as of December 2023.

Responding to the report, Trump Campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt maintained Trump protected Social Security during his previous term. "By unleashing American energy, slashing job-killing regulations and adopting pro-growth America First tax and trade policies, President Trump will quickly rebuild the greatest economy in history and put Social Security on a stronger footing for generations to come," she said.

Trump, however, also saw historic job losses due to the COVID-19 shutdowns at the end of that term, while Democratic President Joe Biden's tenure has seen some 16 million new jobs created, though there was a period of particularly high inflation for much of that time that offset wage gains. As for the Social Security trust funds, CBO estimated they would be exhausted in 2030 in 2017, Trump's first year in office; that moved only a year out, to 2031, in his last year in office in 2020.

“Donald Trump’s agenda poses an imminent threat to Social Security, and seniors could have their benefits cut by a third," said Joseph Costello, a spokesman for the Harris campaign. "This is yet another reason that Americans simply cannot afford the risk of another Trump term."

Contact Todd Spangler: tspangler@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter@tsspangler.

This story has been updated to add new information.

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Report: Trump's plans could force Social Security cuts in 6 years

Social Security funds could run out in 6 years under Trump plans: Analysis
Aris Folley
Mon, October 21, 2024 



Social Security’s trust fund reserves could be depleted as early as 2031 under former President Trump’s proposals, several years earlier than recent projections, according to an analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).

In an analysis published Monday, the fiscal watchdog weighed the impact several Trump proposals — including his plan to end taxation of Social Security benefits, scrap taxes on tips and overtime, impose new tariffs and expand deportations — would have on Social Security’s finances over the coming years, were he to return to the White House and implement them.

The combined trust funds for Social Security retirement and disability benefits are currently projected by the program’s trustees to run out in 2035, a year later than previously expected, after economic growth exceeded expectations last year.

But under Trump’s proposals, the CRFB estimated funds could run out by 2031 while increasing Social Security’s cash deficit $2.3 trillion between fiscal 2026 and fiscal 2035.

In a closer look at the price tag, the CRFB said its central estimate found the biggest cost stemmed from Trump’s proposal to do away with taxation of Social Security benefits — a move that would cost $950 billion.

The next big-ticket item, ending payroll taxes on tips and overtime pay, would cost about $900 billion, while proposed changes on tariffs and immigration could add $400 billion to Social Security’s cash deficit.

Ending taxes on tips and overtime pay would lead to a reduction in “payroll tax collection accruing to the Social Security trust funds,” and imposing large tariffs on imports could “either increase cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) through higher inflation or reduce taxable payroll,” the analysis stated.

The CRFB also said expanding deportations could lead to fewer “immigrant workers paying into the Social Security trust funds.”

Trump’s campaign slammed the analysis in a statement Monday.

“The so-called experts at CRFB have been consistently wrong throughout the years. President Trump delivered on his promise to protect Social Security in his first term, and President Trump will continue to strongly protect Social Security in his second term,” Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, while instead pointing the finger at Vice President Harris, saying immigration under her agenda “would cause Social Security to buckle and collapse.”

The CRFB said Harris’s plans to increase border security and extend some parts of Trump’s signature 2017 tax law could “expand Social Security’s deficits by reducing revenue collection from payroll taxes and taxation of benefits.” But the group said her campaign’s proposal overall would not “have large effects on Social Security trust fund solvency.”

“At the same time, increases in the minimum wage and various tax compliance measures would likely reduce Social Security’s deficits by boosting payroll tax collection,” the CRFB said. “On net, these changes are likely to modestly increase ten-year deficits and advance insolvency by several weeks or months.”

The watchdog additionally forecast potentially bigger cuts to benefits upon insolvency under Trump’s proposals than under current law. The group estimated a 33 percent cut to benefits after tax for roughly half of beneficiaries under Trump’s plans, compared to 23 percent under current law.

“But they would be cut by closer to 30 percent for the seniors with just enough income to be paying taxes on benefits, 26 percent for a household with income in retirement at about $100,000 per year, and 3 percent for the very highest income households,” the group said while assessing the potential impact of Trump’s proposed policies thus far.

Trump has said on the campaign trail that he will not “cut one cent from Social Security.” But experts say that lawmakers will likely need to find common ground on hiking taxes or reducing benefits, or both, to prevent across-the-board benefits cuts if the program goes insolvent in the years ahead.

“Restoring solvency over the next 75 years would require the equivalent of reducing all future benefits by 24 percent or increasing revenue by 35 percent,” the CRFB said in its analysis.

Recent scoring from the group on Trump’s previous Medicare proposals have been more favorable for the former president, however. A CRFB analysis looking at his last budget proposal as president found the proposals offered at the time would have “strengthened” Medicare’s fiscal position and “modestly slowed” its cost growth.

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. 



Trump's policies would jeopardize Social Security, report finds. 'Beyond irresponsible,' says one expert.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Donald Trump's proposed tariffs, tax cuts, and deportations would run the program dry earlier than expected.

Janna Herron
·Senior Columnist
Updated Mon, October 21, 2024 

Scroll back up to restore default view.


Seniors would face heftier cuts to their Social Security benefits sooner than expected if Donald Trump wins the presidential election and his campaign promises are implemented, a new analysis found.

The reserve fund for Social Security would run empty by 2031 instead of the current estimate of 2034 if Trump's tax breaks, tariffs, and mass deportations are imposed, according to a new report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).

At that time, Social Security benefits would be cut by 30% to 31%, reaching 33% by 2035. If Social Security remains on the current trajectory, the reduction would be 23% by 2035.

"Social Security is nine years from insolvency, and neither campaign has a plan to solve it," said Marc Goldwein, a senior policy director for CRFB, a nonpartisan public policy organization. "But President Trump's plans would make it much, much worse."


Though not considered in this report, Goldwein also added that the policies would hurt Medicare's funding as well. Payroll taxes, specifically FICA taxes, fund both Social Security and Medicare.

While there are real questions if all these policies would be enacted should Trump win a second term, simply adding to existing concerns over Social Security's solvency could be enough to drive people to make poorer financial decisions.

"It’s beyond irresponsible, toying with people’s retirement," Laurence Kotlikoff, a professor of economics at Boston University and an expert on Social Security. "We already have too many people taking benefits too early, forfeiting hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits."

Read more: Do you pay taxes on Social Security?

'They're paying into the Social Security program'

The report considered Trump's promises to get rid of taxes on Social Security benefits, tips, and overtime as well as his vow to deport undocumented immigrants and impose a 10% to 20% tariff on imported goods and a 60% tariff on Chinese goods.

By not taxing Social Security benefits — which directly go to Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds — Social Security would lose $950 billion, the analysis found.

Another $900 billion would be lost to the elimination of taxes on overtime and tips, the former of which is subject to FICA taxes and the latter must be reported at tax time.

The tariffs and deportations would reduce the money going to Social Security by $400 billion. In total, that's $2.25 trillion less than would be collected under current law.

Goldwein noted that tariffs increase Social Security spending because tariffs increase prices, boosting inflation. Benefits are indexed to inflation, so they would also increase with consumer prices. The Social Security Administration would then have to pay out more in benefits.

Undocumented immigrants also add to Social Security's coffers, Goldwein said.

"The vast majority of undocumented immigrants are of working age. Many of them work in jobs where they pay taxes either because they gain some legal status after they've gotten here, or they write down a random Social Security number," he said.

"Either way, they're paying into the Social Security program."

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the recent surge in immigrants is expected to bring in $348 billion in Social Security taxes over the 2024–2034 period. The CRFB report assumes this would be reduced to $100 billion to $150 billion under Trump's immigration policies.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump delivers remarks on the damage and federal response to Hurricane Helene on Oct. 21 in Swannanoa, N.C. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Another domino?

While the report only focuses on Social Security, Medicare would also be threatened, said Goldwein, who noted that he might do an additional analysis on that.

Right now, the reserves that Medicare uses for hospital coverage — known as Medicare Part A — are expected to run out in 2036. Eliminating just the taxes on Social Security benefits would move up that date to 2030.

Add in the other tax breaks, tariffs, and deportations, and "those extra should make it even more severe," Goldwein said. "Medicare would likely be insolvent before 2030 under these proposals."

The Medicare trustees have previously said the fund's insolvency could first cause delays in payments to health plans and hospitals. Additionally, seniors' "access to healthcare services could rapidly be curtailed."

The real-life consequences

The severity of Social Security cuts would differ by income. The report found that about half of beneficiaries would see the full 33% cut — typically those with lower incomes who don't pay taxes on benefits now. In 2024, an individual with income below $25,000 does not have to pay taxes on their benefits. That amount is $32,000 for a married couple filing jointly.

Seniors with just enough income to pay taxes would see a 30% cut to their benefits, while those with $100,000 in annual income in retirement would experience a 26% reduction. The very highest income retirees would only see a 3% nick off their benefits.

The cuts are regressive partly because the tax on Social Security benefits is progressive, meaning people are taxed more if they have higher incomes. Those with the top incomes would see a tax break that would largely offset the cut in their benefits.

"Those who are impacted, the majority of them are in the middle class," said Emmanuel Eliason, a certified financial planner in Centennial, Colo. "So less money in the pocket means that their lifestyle may have to be adjusted."

Read more: How to find out your 2025 Social Security COLA increase

The reserve fund for Social Security would run empty by 2031 instead of the current estimate of 2034 if Donald Trump's tax breaks, tariffs, and mass deportations are imposed, new report shows. (AP Foto/Jenny Kane, Archivo)

For those who rely on Social Security for the majority of their income, a cut like this could be devastating, said Monica Dwyer, senior vice president at Harvest Financial Advisors in West Chester, Ohio.

"It will increase the need for government aid such as affordable housing, Medicaid, and other social services, and it will likely mean more homelessness than we have ever seen," she said.

Just the threat of steeper Social Security reductions could hurt people's financial planning.

A survey last year from asset management company Schroders found that the top reason workers said they plan to take benefits before 70 is because they're concerned Social Security could stop paying out before they reach that age.

But if they wait until 70, their benefits would be larger — 8% more every year past full retirement age. Many experts encourage people to wait as long as possible to claim to get the bigger benefit.

"Sometimes the fear about whether Social Security is going to be available encourages people to make bad Social Security decisions," Dwyer said. "I am very concerned that [the effect of Trump's proposals] will make people’s irrational thinking worse."

Janna Herron is a Senior Columnist at Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X @JannaHerron.


Donald Trump's plans would drain Social Security years earlier than expected, report says

William Gavin
Mon, October 21, 2024 

Former President and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump - Photo: Win McNamee (Getty Images)

Former President Donald Trump’s plans to slash taxes are expected to “dramatically” weaken Social Security’s finances — and make the program insolvent three years ahead of schedule.

The Social Security Administration (SSA), the government agency that administers the program’s benefits to Americans, expects its coffers to be depleted by 2035, according to a May report. But proposals Trump has made on the campaign trail would exhaust Social Security by 2031 or 2032 at the latest, according to a report released Monday by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).

As of 2024, almost 68 million Americans receive a check from the SSA each month. The vast majority of those people are at least 65 years old and many depend entirely on the program for income after retiring, the National Institution on Retirement Security found in 2020.

“SENIORS SHOULD NOT PAY TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY!” the Republican presidential nominee wrote in July on his social media platform, Truth Social.

Recipients of benefits must pay federal income taxes if their combined income is higher than $25,000 each year if they file individually, or $32,000 for joint filers. That revenue helps helps fund the Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance trust funds.

Without that funding — combined with the many other tax cuts Trump has proposed — and the former president’s plans to impose massive tariffs and deport unauthorized immigrants, Social Security’s funding will be cut by as much as $2.75 trillion.

Ending taxation of Social Security benefits alone could cut between $850 billion and $950 billion from its cash reserves, while ending taxes on overtime pay and tips would slash anywhere between $150 billion and $1.05 trillion. Heavily restricting immigration and imposing tariffs would reduce the balance by between $300 billion and $750 billion, according to the CRFB.

After Social Security is insolvent, the program’s spending would be limited and likely result in a $16,500 cut in annual benefits for the typical dual-income couple retiring in 2033, the CRFB said.

Under current laws, benefits would have to be cut by 23% by 2035, according to the Congressional Budget office. Trump’s plans would raise that benefit cut to 33% by 2035, according to the CRFB. Although, some beneficiaries would likely see their real after-tax benefits cut by smaller percentages.

In the past, Trump has said he will “not cut one cent” from the program, nor will he change the retirement age. In a town hall last year, he proposed taking advantage of the “incredible wealth under our feet” by drilling for more oil and natural gas to grow the economy. However, that would cover less than 4% of Social Security’s shortfall, the CRFB said last year, noting that opening up “all federal land” to drilling couldn’t solve that problem.

Taiwan Signals Openness to Nuclear Power Amid Surging AI Demand

Taiwan Signals Openness to Nuclear Power Amid Surging AI Demand · Bloomberg
Matthew Winkler, Miaojung Lin, Debby Wu and Yian Lee
Sun, October 20, 2024 at 5:00 PM MDT 5 min read


(Bloomberg) -- Taiwan is “very open” to using new nuclear technology to meet surging demand from chipmakers devouring electricity in the AI boom, according to Premier Cho Jung-tai — one of the strongest signs yet that the government is rethinking its opposition to reactors.

“As long as there is a consensus within Taiwan on nuclear safety and a good direction and guarantees for handling nuclear waste, with this strong consensus, we can have a public discussion,” Cho said in an interview with Bloomberg News.

“We hope that Taiwan can also catch up with global trends and new nuclear technologies,” Cho said on Thursday, while also reiterating his view that “Taiwan will have no issues with power supply for industries before 2030.”

Cho’s comments underscore what appears to be a shift by a government that has opposed using nuclear for safety reasons. Public support for using reactors in Taiwan plunged in 2011 when neighboring Japan was struck by an earthquake that wrecked the Fukushima plant, leading to a crisis Tokyo is still sorting out.

The opposition to nuclear power is getting harder to maintain given the incessant demand that the artificial intelligence boom is placing on chipmakers like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Taiwan has raised electricity prices twice this year, with the latest being a 12.5% increase for industrial users that began earlier this month.

Still, TSMC Chief Executive Officer C. C. Wei said during a post-earnings call Thursday that the company has been assured by the government it will have enough electricity, water and land to support expansion.

Taiwan isn’t alone in taking a closer look at nuclear to boost power supply. Microsoft Corp. is helping revive the shuttered Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania by agreeing to buy all the output. Meanwhile, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Amazon.com Inc. are both investing in next-generation nuclear technology.

The Philippines and South Korea have also agreed to conduct a feasibility study on possibly rehabbing the Southeast Asian nation’s mothballed nuclear plant.

Taiwan’s rethink also comes as China’s military has staged drills that appear to simulate a blockade of the self-ruled island that’s home to 23 million people. Though there are no signs of imminent conflict, the risk of Taiwan being cut off from important energy supplies is one that officials such as Cho must consider.

Underscoring the interest in someday embracing nuclear power, the 65-year-old Cho said he’d ask the state-backed power provider to make sure that personnel from the archipelago’s decommissioned reactors stay in their jobs. Taiwan is set to close its last nuclear reactor in the spring.

“This is because we need to prepare for future nuclear technology developments and to respond to any potential legal changes in Taiwan,” Cho said.

TSMC

In addition to boosting power demand, surging global investment in AI has also put Taiwan’s chipmakers, especially TSMC, in the spotlight because they make the vast majority of the world’s most-advanced semiconductors. The US, Japan and other governments have in turn sought to lure TSMC to build chip plants on their soil.

The government of Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, of which Cho is a member, has been fine with TSMC’s overseas expansion. In Thursday’s interview, Cho linked that expansion to Taiwan’s efforts to build stronger ties with like-minded democracies to counter China, which claims the island as its territory and has pledged to eventually bring it under Beijing’s control, by force if necessary.


That said, Cho also hopes firms like Nvidia Corp., Infineon Technologies AG and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. will open R&D facilities in Taiwan.

“Taiwan’s economic resiliency comes from the partnership we have with friendly countries,” he said. “We have a strong vertically integrated supply chain. This is why we believe Taiwan can play an important role in the democratic supply chain.”

Defense

Of course, Taiwan’s efforts to bolster its security go beyond semiconductors. The government announced plans in August to lift defense spending to a record in 2025 – the eighth straight year of increases. The total figure would account for 2.45% of estimated GDP next year, in line with recent years and greater than the 2% target for NATO countries.

That hasn’t satisfied everyone. Former US President Donald Trump recently made comments to a columnist for the Washington Post that suggested Taiwan should boost spending on its armed forces to 10% of GDP. Cho, a former chairman of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, said in response, “While we cannot allocate 10% of GDP to defense in one go, we have increased the budget compared to the past.”

“We also hope that through Taiwan’s efforts, the world will recognize Taiwan’s determination and provide greater support,” he added.

In the interview, Cho also reiterated the government’s desire to expand defense ties with the US and other nations, which are looking to reduce their supply-chain links to China. One example he mentioned was that Taiwan recently hosted a number of executives from overseas drone makers. If successful, the strategy would create more incentive for those governments to come to Taiwan’s aid in an emergency.

“Because Taiwan understands its role in the democratic supply chain and the world’s reliance on Taiwan, I often say that the more Taiwan is needed, the more important it becomes,” Cho said. “We are continuously moving forward on this path.”

--With assistance from Shin Pei.

Nebraska independent Dan Osborn could be poised to shake up US Senate

Mon, October 21, 2024
By Bo Erickson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former union leader Dan Osborn's independent run for U.S. Senate in deeply Republican Nebraska has shown unexpected strength and if he pulls off an upset victory could make the Navy veteran a Washington wild card next year.

A series of recent polls has shown Osborn within striking distance of incumbent Republican Senator Deb Fischer, a surprise in a state where Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump leads Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris by 18 percentage points and that last elected a Democrat to the Senate in 2006.

Democrats stayed out of the race, setting up a one-on-one contest where Osborn has campaigned on a populist message that straddles the major parties' priorities: supporting both abortion rights and gun rights, speaking out against the power of corporate America and describing illegal immigration as a "pool of cheap labor."

"I am frustrated with both sides catering to the extremes," Osborn, a mechanic, said in a recent televised town hall with local station KETV. "Less than two percent of our elected officials both in the House and Senate come from the working class, so I can bring a unique perspective to Congress."

Osborn said that if elected, he won't caucus with either major party, unlike long-serving independent Senators Bernie Sanders and Angus King, who normally vote with Democrats and are counted among their ranks for purposes of allocating power.

That could complicate Republicans' hopes of erasing Democrats' current 51-49 majority in the chamber. Depending on the overall margin of control, it could give Osborn a pivotal vote, akin to the role that once-Democratic, now-independent Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema played in alternately advancing and blocking parts of Democratic President Joe Biden's agenda.

'CLOSER THAN ANYBODY EXPECTED'

Nebraska is one of just two states that allocate its votes in the Electoral College that picks presidents by congressional district, which has inspired a heavy Democratic get-out-the-vote effort focused on the liberal-leaning areas around Omaha.

"This Senate race is closer than anybody expected," said Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, political science professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. But in a deeply conservative state, she added, "Republicans are likely to stay with their party when push comes to shove."

The four most recent polls on the race, all this month and funded by Osborn's campaign or Fischer's campaign, range from giving the incumbent a six percentage point lead to favoring Osborn by a similar margin.

Osborn rose to prominence for leading a 2021 strike against cereal maker Kellogg's in Omaha, and major unions have powered his campaign through endorsements and donations, though Osborn's campaign eschews corporate PAC donations.

The Republican Fischer, a cattle rancher first elected to the Senate in 2012, touts herself as "Nebraska’s voice, Trump’s choice," and campaigns on a slate of agricultural and rural issues affecting veterans, law enforcement and senior citizens.

"I have a long, conservative record that's helped build Nebraska and keep America strong," Fischer said in a statement.

If elected, Osborn could face unique hurdles, given that Senate jobs and perks are allocated by the two major parties.

"The introduction of an independent who declines to even nominally caucus with either party would introduce an exciting - but confusing - dynamic to the Senate, especially with the chamber so closely divided," said John LaBombard, a bipartisan strategist and former aide to Sinema.

Osborn's campaign said he is confident that Senate rules allow for him to be on at least two committees, but LaBombard said the process to obtain these assignments is ambiguous and could require negotiation with one party's leadership or approval from 59 other senators for this go-it-alone approach.

Some Nebraskans said the mild-mannered politics of the state, where more than 20% of registered voters are unaligned with one of the major parties, could help Osborn.

"With our politics it's not just party line," said Ruth Huebner-Brown, co-founder of the "Blue Dot Nebraska" movement that aims to drive up Democratic support in the Omaha-area district with almost 11,000 yard signs that feature a simple blue dot in the state’s shape.

"I wish there were more people like him," she said. "He really does represent what Nebraska needs, which is, 'I will listen to both sides. I am in the middle.'"

(Reporting by Bo Erickson; Editing by Scott Malone and Alistair Bell)

In battleground Georgia, poor people see no reason to vote. That decision could sway election

GARY FIELDS
Updated Tue, October 22, 2024 




Election 2024 Georgia Poverty
Linda Solomon, a client at Mother's Nest in Macon, Ga., poses for a photo on June 22, 2024. She does not intend to vote because she feels the lives of the poor don't improve regardless of what party controls the White House and government

MACON, Ga. (AP) — Sabrina Friday scanned the room at Mother's Nest, an organization in Macon that provides baby supplies, training, food and housing to mothers in need, and she asked how many planned to vote. Of the 30, mostly women, six raised their hands.

Friday, the group's executive director, said she tries to stress civic duty, an often difficult proposition given the circumstances of her clients.

“When a mom is in a hotel room and there’s six or seven people in two beds and her kids are hungry and she just lost the car, she doesn’t want to hear too much about elections,” Friday said. “She wants to hear how you can help.”


Macon is the largest city in Bibb County, where the majority of residents are Black and one in four of its population lives in poverty. When Joe Biden became president four years ago, he promised to tackle the pernicious gap in racial equity — and in few places is the stubbornness of that challenge as politically significant in this state that could swing the presidential election.

Located about 80 miles (130 kilometers) south of Atlanta, Bibb County is the kind of place where Vice President Kamala Harris would need to run up her margin in order to defeat Donald Trump in this year's election, a strategy that helped Biden win the state four years ago as he promised to lift up Black Americans. It won't be easy: Bibb County never recovered all the jobs lost during the pandemic, and Labor Department data show it had more jobs in 2019 under Trump than it does now.

Trump, the former president, sees himself as having an opportunity with Black voters, particularly men. But he and Harris have one thing in common: Each will have a difficult time persuading people to turn out who typically sit out elections. More than 47,000 people in Bibb County were eligible to vote in 2020 and didn't, a figure roughly four times Biden's margin of victory across the entire state. Eligible voters are defined as legal residents who are 18 or older, according to Census figures.

The Biden-Harris administration can claim to have addressed three of the four crises it pledged to fix. The pandemic largely receded three years ago, the economy has improved and there is a genuine commitment of several hundreds of billions of federal dollars to tackle climate change. But racial inequality — as measured by the Federal Reserve — has worsened.

At Mother's Nest, Linda Solomon, 58, said she and her daughter aren’t voting “ because nothing changes " no matter who sits in the White House. “Why you gonna vote and ain’t nobody doing nothing?”

While Harris has excited Black voters in and around Atlanta, with its wealthier and better-educated electorate, interviews in Bibb County suggest voters living in far worse circumstances are not moved by the historic nature of her candidacy. Democrats won the county by a 2-1 margin in 2020, and Republicans are increasingly confident they can erode Democrats' historic advantage of winning roughly 90% of all Black votes.

Janiyah Thomas, Black media director for the Trump campaign, said in an email exchange that “Black voters in rural America hold the key to America’s future, and President Trump is the only candidate who has proven he can deliver real results.”

Thomas said Black unemployment hit historic lows during Trump’s first term, although it ultimately hit a record low of 4.8% in April 2023 under Biden. But the Black unemployment rate is now at 5.6%, more than two percentage points higher than the unemployment rate for white workers and higher than the rate for Asian and Hispanic workers.

Thomas said get-out-the-vote efforts are focused on low-propensity voters, adding that they are using traditional canvassing methods as well as TikTok and outside groups. She estimated the efforts will reach 15 million doors across the battlegrounds.

The Harris campaign is relying on having staff on the ground. It has six people in its Macon office and has been canvassing across the region, including lower-income and rural areas. The campaign believes lower-income voters receive most of their news and information on mobile devices and can be reached by its $200 million digital ad push.

While campaigning, Harris has focused on the middle class, and she has offered plans for small businesses and home buyers.

In places like Macon, that could prove a difficult sale. The clients at Mother’s Nest are not business owners or homebuyers anytime soon, and even Harris’ plan to take on grocery chains for price gouging doesn’t resonate with a population living in food deserts.

The outlook of those patrons falls in line with other Black registered voters. They have an overwhelmingly positive view of Harris, but only about half of them believe the outcome of this presidential election will have “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of impact on them personally, according to a recent poll from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

But the more nonurban parts of Georgia are only part of the electoral puzzle. It’s a dramatically different story in Atlanta and its vote-rich suburbs where enthusiasm runs high for both Harris and Trump, although often divided by race.

A viewing party of the presidential debate drew scores of well-to-do residents to Buckhead Art & Company in an affluent uptown neighborhood. Many of the dozens of attendees, including the owner and hostess, Karimah McFarlane, were part of the Howard University graduate network. The party had a panel discussion that urged attendees to focus their efforts on getting young Black men to vote. The first thing every guest encountered was the voter registration table, complete with information on Georgia's system and various deadlines.

McFarlane explained that Atlanta has attracted small business owners and others because of the business-friendly atmosphere. What can be less friendly is the voting system, with some newcomers particularly puzzled by how to vote absentee.

Across town, a voter registration drive at Spelman College targeted first-time voters. Hosted by the members of Harris' sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, and their Alpha Phi Alpha brothers from Morehouse College, the event began drawing would-be registrants an hour before sign-ups started. At its peak, dozens of students crowded the tables set up outside the student union and bookstore. The organizations could not campaign for, or endorse Harris, but students spoke freely.

Caleb Cage, 21, a religion major at Morehouse, said he'd seen the excitement rise for the vice president “especially among people in my particular demographic, young people.” Cage is voting absentee in his home state of Maryland.

He said he had heard about young Black men taking their support to Trump and his response was to remember what the vote means. "To reiterate the sentiments of our Morehouse brother, Sen. Raphael Warnock, a vote is a prayer for the future world you want to see. That’s extremely important for young people.”

But, even on a storied historically Black college campus, there was an awareness that the messages that are invigorating college students might not hit others. Elise Sampson, 20, a junior political science major at Spelman and member of the sorority co-sponsoring the registration drive, said economic disparities needed to be part of the discussions.

“It comes down to an accessibility issue," she said. “When people don’t feel heard and represented, it is hard to want to participate in a political system that doesn’t hear and represent you.”

Malcolm Patterson, a 21-year-old junior finance major at Morehouse from Marietta, Georgia, was at the event to support the activity, adding he was already registered.

“This is my first presidential election,” Patterson said. "It’s important for us to vote on the future we hope to see,” he said.

Poor voters are hidden figures in the election

Even with 2020's record number of ballots cast, more than 75 million people eligible to vote did not cast ballots, according to a study by the Center for Inclusive Democracy at the University of Southern California.

AP VoteCast, a survey of both voters and nonvoters, showed that nonvoters in 2020 tended to be poorer, younger, less educated, unmarried and minorities. The data, collected by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, also found that among voters in 2020, 15% reported having a household income under $25,000 in the previous year, compared with roughly 3 in 10 nonvoters. Put those characteristics against a population of 27 million adults who live below poverty, according to the census, and the figures suggest that people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder probably make up a significant subset of all nonvoters.

Georgia was an unlikely cauldron of election turmoil

In 2020, the turnout of people eligible to vote in Georgia was 66.3%, nearly matching the national figure of 66.8%, according to the Center for Inclusive Democracy, with the lowest turnouts among Black and Latino voters.

The Republican-controlled legislature has sought changes aimed at redressing complaints fueled by Trump's false claims of voting fraud in 2020. (Trump is facing criminal charges in the state for his actions trying to overturn the result.) That includes requiring a hand count of all ballots cast, though a Georgia judge has blocked that at least for now. Another change requires homeless voters to use the address of the county voter registration office rather than where they live, which could add to the impoverished nonvoter numbers.

A microcosm of demographics and census

A majority of Bibb County's 150,000-plus residents are minorities and over 60% are unmarried. Four in 10 are younger than 30 and nearly half have a high school education or less. The poverty rate is above 25%, more than double the state and national averages.

In interviews with dozens of single moms, grandmothers and some men, it was clear that the campaigns are not addressing their problems.

Solomon came to Mother's Nest with her grown son and daughter and grandchildren. None of them vote, she said. Her son can't because of a criminal record but she and her daughter won't because, “If you ain't got nothing, nobody has time for you whether you are Black or white. If you're poor, you're poor and they ain't got time.”

Friday, who started the center in 2022, slips in comments on voting and why it's important, not just nationally but locally, where issues are decided that impact the families directly.

“You’d be surprised that a lot of them just don’t want to because they’ve given up,” she said.

Dr. Tiffany Hall hosted a dental clinic and heard the challenges of the attendees first hand, including how most can't get preventive dental care until issues become emergencies.

Tynesha Haslem, 36, listened intently. In an interview, she said she remembered voting — she believes during one of Barack Obama's elections — but voting has not been a priority in a “horrible” life.

She lost the car she had earlier this year and she and her sons spend nights in a hotel. She is not registered to vote now but even if she wanted to, it is unclear that she could because of a felony conviction on her record from 2016 for attacking an ex-boyfriend. Her top priority is getting a job “hopefully in customer service,” she said.

Nonvoters have basic, urgent needs the campaigns don't address

Cars began lining up, for more than a mile, near the Unionville Missionary Baptist Church for a food and clothing giveaway. The first flurry came in a steady flow for an hour, grabbing canned goods and other produce packaged the night before by church members.

Levita Carter, 55, was one of the church members and also a teacher in the school system. “Our children are coming to school hungry,” she said. “They don’t have sufficient food. They don’t have sufficient clothing.”

Carter's message to people using the food pantries and Mother's Nest: “Our vote counts right here. We need to start small in our town and our place and get some people in place right here that can affect change here before we can even get to voting for president."

___

Associated Press writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.

___

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

First openly transgender lawyer to argue at US Supreme Court

Mon, October 21, 2024 

FILE PHOTO: The Time 100 Gala celebrating Time magazine's 100 most influential people people in the world in New York


By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) - An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer will make history in December as the first openly transgender attorney to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court, opposing Tennessee's Republican-backed law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.

The ACLU's Chase Strangio, 41, represents a group of transgender people who pursued a lawsuit challenging the measure that prohibits medical treatments including hormones and surgeries for minors experiencing gender dysphoria.


In one of the most consequential cases of the court's current nine-month term, the nine justices will hear arguments on Dec. 4 in an appeal by President Joe Biden's administration of a lower court's decision upholding Tennessee's ban.

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered that the argument time for the ban's challengers be divided between the Justice Department and attorneys representing the original plaintiffs who sued the state. Strangio will present the arguments for these plaintiffs at the lectern in the ornate courtroom.

ACLU Legal Director Cecillia Wang called Strangio the leading U.S. legal expert on transgender rights.

"He brings to the lectern not only brilliant constitutional lawyering, but also the tenacity and heart of a civil rights champion," Wang said.

Strangio, who joined the ACLU in 2013, is the co-director of its LGBTQ & HIV Project, helping the organization oppose state laws targeting transgender people, including 12 legal challenges against the laws like the one at issue before the Supreme Court.

Strangio has represented people in high-profile cases including transgender student Gavin Grimm, who fought a Virginia school board to use the bathroom corresponding with his gender identity, and Chelsea Manning, a transgender former U.S. soldier who served time in prison for leaking classified documents.

According to the Justice Department, Tennessee is one of 22 states that have passed measures targeting medical interventions for adolescents with gender dysphoria. That is the clinical diagnosis for significant distress that can result from an incongruence between a person's gender identity and the sex they were assigned at birth.

Lawmakers supporting the restrictions have called the treatments experimental and potentially harmful. Medical associations, noting that gender dysphoria is associated with higher rates of suicide, have said gender-affirming care can be life-saving, and that long-term studies show its effectiveness.

Several plaintiffs - including two transgender boys, a transgender girl and their parents - sued in Tennessee to defend the treatments they have said improved their happiness and wellbeing. The Justice Department intervened in the lawsuit to also challenge the law.

The challengers contend that banning care for transgender youth violates the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment promise of equal protection by discriminating against these adolescents based on sex and transgender status.

In a written filing, the Justice Department highlighted that one of the law's "declared purposes is to enforce gender conformity and discourage adolescents from identifying as transgender."

The state asked the Supreme Court to let the law stand.

"Tennessee lawfully exercised its power to regulate medicine by protecting minors from risky, unproven gender-transition interventions," Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a filing.

A federal judge blocked the law in Tennessee in 2023, finding that it likely violates the 14th Amendment. In a 2-1 decision in 2023, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judge's preliminary injunction.

The Supreme Court has confronted several cases in the past decade implicating LGBT rights. In 2015, it legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. In 2020, it ruled that a landmark federal law forbidding workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees. In 2023, it decided in a case from Washington state that the constitutional right to free speech allows certain businesses to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)

The First Out Trans Lawyer to Argue Before the Supreme Court Is Feeling the Pressure

Solcyré Burga
Mon, October 21, 2024 


Chase Strangio speaks onstage during the 2024 New York #LWTSUMMIT on September 19, 2024 in New York City. Credit - Bonnie Biess/Getty Images for Lesbians Who Tech & Allies

One case the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this term is historic not just because of the legal precedent it could set for LGBTQ rights, but also because of the identity of the plaintiffs’ lawyer. Chase Strangio is set to become the first out transgender lawyer to argue a case before the nation’s highest Court.

U.S. v. Skrmetti challenges a Tennessee law barring transgender youth from accessing gender-affirming-care. Strangio, co-Director for Transgender Justice with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project, will be representing the Williams family of Nashville, two other anonymous families, and a Memphis-based medical provider to argue Tennessee’s law is unconstitutional.

The high court’s decision will not only have an effect on the more than 3,000 transgender youth currently living in Tennessee, according to a UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute report, but could also extend to the trans youth in 26 other states that have passed gender-affirming-care bans.

Strangio feels the weight of his responsibility—particularly given his personal connection to the subject matter of the case. “I have this deep, intimate and personal connection to the work that I do that can make it both harder, but also more significant, more motivating,” he says. “I feel a lot of pressure, personally and on behalf of my community, to continue to figure out the best strategic decisions.”

TIME spoke with Strangio ahead of the start of the Supreme Court’s term in October. This conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
How do you feel about becoming the first out trans lawyer to argue in front of the Supreme Court?

The first thing that comes to mind is that it signifies for so many communities, things are so far behind where they should be. In 2024, no group of people should be having their first experience of anything, and it is always a function of structural discrimination and barriers to access to various spaces that make it so much harder for people, and certain groups, to have access to different spaces. To the extent I'm the first out attorney arguing before the Supreme Court, it's also not surprising that I would be a white trans masculine attorney, because, again, these are all just functions of the systems of power that make it easier and harder for different people based on the bodies that we inhabit to access different spaces.

So on some level, the first thing I feel is sort of sad about the state of the world. And then the second thing is I think about all the other advocates for trans people that have come before me. In particular, I think about Pauli Murray, who was likely a trans lawyer, certainly a gender nonconforming and queer, Black lawyer, whose work laid the groundwork, not just for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's work, but also for Thurgood Marshall's work, and set the contours for so much of our constitutional arguments and work.
Are you planning to reference the historic nature of your oral arguments in front of the justices?

I don't know the answer to that. I think it's something where it can be very vulnerable.
The case you’re arguing, U.S. v. Skrmetti, could have serious repercussions on the ability of trans youth to access gender-affirming-care, but could also go beyond the scope of that. Do you feel a personal connection to the case?

I certainly feel a personal connection to this case. The central arguments are about not just the legitimacy of trans healthcare, but about, in some sense, the legitimacy of trans people, as members of civic life and public life. I think it just wouldn't be possible to feel more connected to it. It has everything to do with my experiences in the world and my prospects for living in the United States in the future. So that is central to how I experience the legal arguments, but also the material consequences of the case. For all the healthcare cases in particular, I truly unambiguously believe that the only reason I've been able to have the rich, and full, and really beautiful adult life that I do have is because of gender-affirming medical care, and I feel that my experience is a refutation of the arguments that are being made.
Seeing that this is personal to you, does that make preparing for this more difficult than if it were a different subject matter? Does that weigh on you?

My entire career has involved issues and cases that feel intimately connected to my own life and everyone I love and care about. I don't even know what it would be like to work on something that you're only engaging with in some abstract way. I have this deep, intimate and personal connection to the work that I do that can make it both harder, but also more significant, more motivating. I feel a lot of pressure, personally and on behalf of my community, to continue to figure out the best strategic decisions. But these are not individual decisions. These are big, large, collective decisions, and so that is all just part of the work. And I feel really lucky, more than anything else, to be a part of it.

In terms of, what does it feel like to tackle it in the presentation of the legal arguments in court, I have always felt that it requires a certain degree of compartmentalization. I think we all do what we can to navigate that experience of compartmentalization in our advocacy when we're advocating on behalf of our own communities.
Throughout your career, you’ve been involved in litigation about LGBTQ+ rights. Based on your experience, could you name one thing that worries you and one thing that gives you hope about the future?

Everything worries me about the future right now. We have this election, we have this Supreme Court case, we have this escalatingly vicious public discourse around transness and trans people. At the same time, my community and the brilliance and beauty of trans people, it gives me hope every day. It gives me faith for the future. It gives me a sense of endless possibility.
How does the transgender rights movement compare to other politically charged movements, like Freedom to Marry?

Looking at the LGBTQ+ movement broadly as it relates to gay and lesbian people versus where we are with trans people, I think this is really an inflection point. Are we about to have a Bowers v. Hardwick moment? A moment where the Supreme Court legitimizes government discrimination against trans people?

Is it going to be a Bowers moment, or is it going to be a Bostock moment? Is it going to be a moment where, rather than say the government can discriminate against people, the court says, ‘No, the laws that exist, the constitutional protections that exist, apply to trans people, just like they apply to everyone else.’ That really is what's at stake here. What is the trajectory of the next 15 to 20 years? Because if they do rule against us, I think, like with Bowers, it will be a case that will seem wrongly decided and overturned. But hopefully we don't have to go through that period again. And it's not just affecting trans people, it'll affect all LGBTQ people. It'll affect all people who experience gender-based discrimination.
What message do you have for the transgender community?

I always want to say two things to trans people in this moment. The first is, I'm so sorry that this set of relentless political, cultural and legal attacks have been escalating over the last, in particular, 10 years. It is painful and it's frustrating. And we collectively have to hold and honor each other's vulnerability and pain in this moment.

The second thing I'll say is, we have a long and rich history as trans people of leading resistance movements, not just for trans liberation, but for collective liberation more broadly, and that is going to continue. And this Supreme Court fight, critical as it is, is just one piece in a long struggle in a long and rich history of resistance, and so we will continue to collectively mobilize no matter what happens.

Correction, Oct. 21

The original version of this story misquoted Strangio. He said "Bostock moment," not "bus stop moment."

Contact us at letters@time.com.

India, Pakistan arrest farmers for burning crop waste as pollution rises

Sakshi Dayal and Ainnie Arif
Updated Tue, October 22, 2024 







Farmers burn stubble in a rice field in Karnal

By Sakshi Dayal and Ainnie Arif

NEW DELHI (Reuters) -At least 16 farmers have been arrested in India's northern state of Haryana for illegally burning paddy stubble to clear fields, a practice that stokes air pollution in the region around New Delhi at the onset of winter, authorities said on Tuesday.

India's national capital region battles pollution each year as temperatures fall and cold air traps construction dust, vehicle emissions and smoke, much of which officials say travels from the neighbouring breadbasket states of Punjab and Haryana.


Police in Haryana's Kaithal region told Reuters that 22 complaints of stubble burning have been registered this year, and 16 people have been arrested.

Birbhan, a deputy superintendent of police, who uses only one name, said those arrested had been released on bail.

Investigations have been launched against almost 100 farmers across Haryana, while fines have been imposed on more than 300, local media reported.

Delhi recorded "very poor" air on Tuesday morning, according to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), with an air quality index (AQI) of 320. An AQI of 0-50 is considered good while anything between 400-500 poses health dangers.

It was the second-most polluted city in the world on Tuesday, a live ranking by IQAir indicated, after only Lahore in neighbouring Pakistan's Punjab province, whose chief minister earlier urged 'climate diplomacy' with India to combat smog.

At least 182 complaints have been registered and 71 people arrested for burning stubble and trash, operating prohibited brick-kilns and driving smoke-emitting vehicles, Punjab police said.

"Resources have also been allocated for artificial rain and other measures," said senior Punjab minister Marriyum Aurangzeb, adding each instance of artificial rain will cost between 5 million rupees ($18,000) and 7 million rupees ($25,200).

India's environment ministry said Delhi's air quality was likely to stay in the 'Very Poor' category (300-400) in coming days due to unfavourable meteorological and climatic conditions.

To curb Delhi's pollution authorities have ordered water sprinkling on roads to tackle dust, increasing public bus and metro services and higher parking fees to discourage car use.

Environmentalists say the measures are inadequate.

"These are only emergency measures...This air pollution mitigation needs a long-term comprehensive solution rather than these ad hoc measures," said environmentalist Vimlendu Jha.

($1 = 277.6000 Pakistani rupees)

(Reporting by Sakshi Dayal and Ainnie Arif in New Delhi, Mubasher Bukhari in Lahore, writing by Sakshi Dayal, Editing by YP Rajesh, William Maclean)
View comments (8)

McDonald’s didn’t give Trump permission to serve fries. It didn’t need to

Jordan Valinsky
Mon, October 21, 2024 

McDonald’s has been thrust into the 2024 election, gaining particular attention over the weekend when former President Donald Trump served fries at a Feasterville-Trevose, Pennsylvania, location. But McDonald’s had nothing to do with Trump’s visit.

The company operates on a franchise model, which means the vast majority of its locations are independently owned and operated. Although franchise owners have to abide by certain guidelines in their agreements with the parent company, they are free to invite political candidates to serve fries without McDonald’s buy-in.


The company said Sunday in an internal memo to employees obtained by CNN that it did not invite Trump or the attention the election has brought it — but the company spun the spotlight as proof that McDonald’s remains a key part of everyday American life for millions of people.

“As we’ve seen, our brand has been a fixture of conversation this election cycle. While we’ve not sought this, it’s a testament to how much McDonald’s resonates with so many Americans,” the company said in its memo. “McDonald’s does not endorse candidates for elected office and that remains true in this race for the next President. We are not red or blue – we are golden.”

The letter was signed by its entire US senior leadership team, including McDonald’s President Joe Erlinger.

At the staged event, Trump put on an apron to work as a fry attendant and handed people food at the location, which had been closed for the campaign stop.

McDonald’s said that it was proud that Trump has often expressed his love for McDonald’s and Harris spoke fondly of her time working at the company, to which she has frequently referred during her campaign and a refrain that Trump, without evidence, has disputed. Harris says she briefly worked at the chain during the summer of 1983 when she was still a student at Howard University in Washington.


Still, some McDonald’s customers and employees spoke out against the company after Trump’s visit, criticizing McDonald’s for allowing the Republican presidential candidate to campaign at a restaurant.

The company clarified in its memo that Derek Giacomantonio, the franchise’s owner and operator, was approached by local law enforcement about Trump’s desire to visit and Giacomantonio accepted.

“He was proud to highlight how he and his team serve their local community and make delicious food, like our World-Famous French Fries,” the company said. “Upon learning of the former President’s request, we approached it through the lens of one of our core values: we open our doors to everyone.”

McDonald’s franchise model

Franchises are a key part of McDonald’s business, with roughly 95% of all McDonald’s locations operated by franchise operators. Operators pay a royalty rate to use McDonald’s brand and for access to its expertise. They also help pay for other expenses, like restaurant renovations.

The company has run into trouble with franchises in the past, most notably after a McDonald’s operator in Israel offered discounts to soldiers and security forces after Hamas’ October 7 attack. After news of the promotion was disseminated on social media, many customers began boycotting McDonald’s in Muslim-dominated countries — so much so that McDonald’s has cited Middle East boycotts on its earnings as a drag on its business over the past several quarters.

Starbucks also ran afoul of its union last year after reports circulated online that stores were banning Pride displays. The company had no official policy on the matter — and no evidence that was happening broadly. But some franchises apparently opted not to allow employees to decorate the stores with Pride flags and other symbols despite the company’s stated support for LGBTQ+ rights. The company later clarified its policy on Pride displays.

Similarly, McDonald’s said the chain has “election toolkits” to handle events like this.

CNN’s Katelyn Polantz contributed to this report.