President Donald Trump's "One Big, Beautiful Bill" Will Speed Up the Timeline to Social Security Benefit Cuts, New Analysis Finds

Sean Williams, 

The Motley Fool
Sun, August 17, 2025 


Key Points

Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund is an estimated eight years away from exhausting its asset reserves, which would trigger sweeping benefit cuts.


A fresh analysis from the Social Security Administration's Office of the Actuary foresees the "big, beautiful bill" modestly exacerbating the program's cash outflow.


However, ongoing demographic changes are the root cause of Social Security's financial woes.


For most aging Americans, Social Security income isn't a luxury -- it's a necessary payout that ensures a stable financial foundation.

For 24 years, Gallup has been surveying retirees to gauge their reliance on the income they receive from Social Security. Every year, 80% to 90% of respondents have noted their payout represents a "major" or "minor" income source. In other words, it's a necessity, in some capacity, to cover their expenses.

Ideally, elected lawmakers -- which include President Donald Trump -- should be doing everything in their power to ensure the long-term financial stability of Social Security. But based on the latest update from the Social Security Board of Trustees, that's not happening.

Worse yet, President Trump's flagship tax and spending law, the "big, beautiful bill," is expected to speed up the timeline to across-the-board Social Security benefit cuts, according to a new analysis.

President Trump addressing reporters. Image source: Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead, courtesy of the National Archives.

Social Security benefit cuts are an estimated eight years away

Before digging into Donald Trump's newly passed law, the groundwork needs to be laid for what challenges await America's leading retirement program.

Every year since the first retired-worker benefit was mailed out in 1940, the Social Security Board of Trustees has published a report that intricately details the program's financial health. It allows anyone to see how every dollar of income is collected and to track where those dollars end up.

Arguably, the most important aspect of these annual reports is the long-term forecast. The long-term outlook takes into consideration fiscal and monetary policy changes, as well as ongoing demographic shifts, to determine how financially sound Social Security will be in the 75 years following the release of a report.

Since 1985, every Social Security Board of Trustees Report has warned of a long-term unfunded obligation. In essence, projected income in the 75 years following the release of a report is believed to be insufficient to cover outlays, which are primarily comprised of benefits but also include the administrative expenses to operate the Social Security program. As of the 2025 report, this unfunded obligation has ballooned to $25.1 trillion.

While this is a daunting figure, it's not the most immediate cause for concern. Rather, it's the Trustees' projection that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund will exhaust its asset reserves by 2033. The OASI is the fund responsible for making monthly payments to retired workers and survivors of deceased workers.

To be clear, the OASI doesn't need a dime in its asset reserves to continue doling out payments to eligible beneficiaries. However, the depletion of its asset reserves would signal that the existing payout schedule, including near-annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), is unsustainable.

According to the Trustees Report, sweeping benefit cuts of up to 23% may be necessary in eight years if the OASI's asset reserves run dry.

The OASI's asset reserves are forecast to be exhausted by 2033. US Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund Assets at End of Year data by YCharts.

Analysis: Trump's "big, beautiful bill" exacerbates this cash outflow

However, this projected timeline for benefit cuts isn't set in stone. In late July, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, sent a request to the Social Security Administration's Office of the Chief Actuary (OACT) to determine what, if any, financial impacts Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" would have on the Social Security trust funds.

On Aug. 5, the OACT offered its response and updated projections to Sen. Wyden. The headline takeaway from the OACT's analysis is that Trump's flagship law will speed up the timeline to across-the-board benefit cuts.

Specifically, the OACT analysis points to alterations in tax collection that are expected to adversely impact the Social Security program, beginning this year. Some of these changes include:

Increasing the standard deduction amount for eligible seniors aged 65 and above from 2025 through 2028.

Allowing eligible workers to deduct up to $25,000 in reported tips from their federal taxable income from 2025 through 2028.

Allowing eligible workers to deduct a portion of their overtime pay from their federal income tax from 2025 through 2028.

These provisions in the "big, beautiful bill" are meaningful because 91% of Social Security's income is collected from the 12.4% payroll tax on earned income (wages and salary, but not investment income), with another 3.9% coming from the taxation of Social Security benefits. These aforementioned tax-reducing initiatives are forecast to increase costs for the OASI and Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund by $168.6 billion, on a combined basis, from 2025 through 2034.

This reduction in projected income collection comes at a price. The new asset reserve depletion date for the OASI has moved from the third quarter of 2033 to the fourth quarter of 2032, per the OACT. For the hypothetically combined OASI and DI (OASDI) -- asset reserves from the DI can potentially be leaned on to extend the solvency of the combined OASDI -- Trump's law moves the asset reserve depletion date from the third quarter of 2034 to the first quarter of 2034.

Image source: Getty Images.

Ongoing demographic changes are primarily to blame for Social Security's financial struggles

Although the OACT's analysis finds that Trump's "big, beautiful bill" is going to worsen Social Security's financial outlook, it's important to recognize that the president's newly signed law isn't at the heart of the aforementioned $25.1 trillion (and growing) long-term funding shortfall. Social Security's worsening financial outlook primarily rests on an assortment of ongoing demographic shifts.


Some of these demographic changes are well-known and have been ongoing for some time. For example, baby boomers retiring from the workforce are weighing down the worker-to-beneficiary ratio.

We've also witnessed the average life expectancy notably increase since the first retired-worker benefit check was mailed in January 1940. The Social Security program was never designed to pay retirees for multiple decades.

But a number of these major demographic shifts are occurring below the surface:

The U.S. fertility rate hit an all-time low in 2024. Fewer births will lead to added pressure on the worker-to-beneficiary ratio in decades to come.

Net migration into the U.S. has fallen off considerably since the late 1990s. Legal migrants entering the U.S. are typically younger and spend decades in the labor force contributing to Social Security via the payroll tax. Fewer legal migrants equate to less payroll tax income being collected.

Rising income inequality is allowing more earned income to escape the payroll tax. In 2025, all earned income from $0.01 to $176,100 is subject to the payroll tax. For decades, the upper bound of taxable income (the $176,100 figure in 2025) has grown at a slower pace than earned income for high earners, thereby allowing more earnings to escape the payroll tax.

While not a demographic shift, elected lawmakers' lack of progress in fixing Social Security is deserving of some blame, as well. Though proposals to strengthen Social Security are aplenty on Capitol Hill, finding some semblance of middle ground between America's two major political parties has proved virtually impossible.

Even though Donald Trump's tax and spending law is forecast to make things worse for Social Security over the next decade, it's far from the root issues that need to be addressed to strengthen America's leading retirement program.
The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook

If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income.

One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these strategies.

View the "Social Security secrets" »

The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

President Donald Trump's "One Big, Beautiful Bill" Will Speed Up the Timeline to Social Security Benefit Cuts, New Analysis Finds was originally published by The Motley Fool

MYANMAR

This military junta is rebranding itself to hold elections. But a UN probe has found evidence of intensifying atrocities

Helen Regan, CNN
Sat, August 16, 2025 


Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, head of the military council, inspects officers during a parade to commemorate Myanmar's 80th Armed Forces Day, in Naypyidaw, Myanmar, on March 27, 2025. - Aung Shine Oo/AP

As evidence mounts of intensifying atrocities, including the torture of children, being committed in Myanmar, the country’s military generals are rebranding their junta regime and planning stage-managed elections in a nation they only control parts of.

They’ve rescinded a four-year state of emergency order, imposed during their 2021 military coup, and formed a caretaker administration to govern the war-torn Southeast Asian country until a new parliament is assembled following a national vote.

But it is merely a cosmetic change, analysts say — designed to give the appearance that it’s playing by the democratic playbook while remaining firmly in power, something Myanmar’s military have a long and notorious history of doing.

The election, to be held in stages over December 2025 and January 2026, is resoundingly regarded as a sham and a tool used by the junta to give it a veneer of legitimacy as it seeks to entrench its rule and gain international recognition.

The junta’s notoriety, though, is only growing.

UN investigators have gathered evidence of systemic torture against those detained by the military, summary executions of captured combatants or civilians accused of being informers, children as young as two being detained in place of their parents, and aerial attacks on schools, homes and hospitals.

Here’s what to know:

How we got here

For more than four years, Myanmar’s military rulers have waged a brutal civil war across the country, sending columns of troops on bloody rampages, torching and bombing villages, massacring residents, jailing opponents and forcing young men and women to join the army.


The United Nations and other rights groups have accused the military of war crimes as it battles democracy fighters and longstanding ethnic armed groups to cling to power.

Military officers march during a parade to commemorate Myanmar's 80th Armed Forces Day in Naypyidaw, Myanmar, on March 27, 2025. - Aung Shine Oo/AP

At the head of this junta is Sen. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, the army chief who seized power in 2021, overthrowing the democratically elected government of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and installed himself as leader.

The military, which had previously ruled Myanmar with an iron fist for decades, sought to justify its takeover by alleging widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, which was won in a landslide by Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy Party. The claims were never substantiated.

Min Aung Hlaing has been sanctioned and spurned by the West, the country’s economy is in tatters, and his military has lost significant territory in its grinding, multi-front civil war.

Evidence of ‘systemic torture’

The UN’s Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar has said that the “frequency and intensity” of atrocities in the country has only escalated over the past year.

Children as young as two years old were often detained in place of their parents and some were also abused and tortured, the group found.

It has collected evidence of “systemic torture” in the military-run detention facilities, including rape and other forms of sexual violence. Some detainees died as a result of the torture, according to the IIMM.

Protesters sit in the middle of the street during the demonstration to protest against the military coup on February 1, 2021 in Yangon, Myanmar. - Santosh Krl/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Inmages/File

Those responsible include specific members and units of security forces involved in operations as well as high-ranking commanders, according to the group.

The military has repeatedly denied committing atrocities and says it is targeting “terrorists.” The junta has not responded to media requests for comment.

‘A sham election’

The junta said its election objectives are for a “genuine, disciplined multiparty democratic system and the building of a union based on democracy and federalism.”

But with most of the country’s pro-democracy lawmakers in exile or jail, and the military’s widespread repression and attacks on the people, such a vote would never be considered free or fair, observers say.

“It’s a sham election… It’s not inclusive, it’s not legitimate,” Mi Kun Chan Non, a women’s activist working with Myanmar’s Mon ethnic minority, told CNN.

Many observers have warned that Min Aung Hlaing is seeking to legitimize his power grab through the ballot box and rule through proxy political parties.

“He needs to make himself legitimate … He thought that the election is the only way (to do that.),” said Mi Kun Chan Non.

The United States and most Western countries have never recognized the junta as the legitimate government of Myanmar, and the election has been denounced by several governments in the region - including Japan and Malaysia.

A soldier from the Karenni Nationalities Defence Force (KNDF), a main armed group fighting the military, walks to a reconnaissance mission. - Thierry Falise/LightRocket//Getty Images

A collective of international election experts said a genuine election in Myanmar “is impossible under the current conditions,” in a joint statement released by the umbrella organization International Idea. The experts pointed to “draconian legislation banning opposition political parties, the arrest and detention of political leaders and democracy activists, severe restrictions of the media, and the organization of an unreliable census by the junta as a basis for the voter list.”

Others say they cannot trust the military when it continues its campaign of violence, and when its history is littered with false promises of reform.

Voting in a war zone

Details on the election process are thin, but many citizens could be casting their votes in an active conflict zone or under the eyes of armed soldiers – a terrifying prospect that some say could lead to more violence.

Junta bombs have destroyed homes, schools, markets, places of worship and hospitals, and are a primary cause of the displacement of more than 3.5 million people across the country since the coup.

There are fears that those in junta-controlled areas will be threatened or coerced into voting. And some townships may never get to vote, given the junta’s lack of control over large swathes of the country outside its heartland and major cities.

One of the country’s most powerful ethnic armed groups, the Arakan Army, has said it will not allow elections to be held in territories it controls, which includes most of western Rakhine state.

And the National Unity Government, an exiled administration which considers itself the legitimate government of Myanmar, has urged the people to “oppose and resist” participating in the poll, saying the junta “does not have the right or authority to conduct elections.”

There are also signs the military is moving to consolidate its power in those parts of the country it does not control. As it rescinded the nationwide state of emergency, it also imposed martial law in more than 60 townships – giving the military increased powers in resistance strongholds.

“The military has been pushing hard to reclaim the territories it has lost, but regaining consolidated control — especially in the lead-up to the elections — will be a near impossibility within such a short timeframe,” said Ye Myo Hein, a senior fellow at the Southeast Asia Peace Institute, based in Washington DC.

“Instead, holding elections amid this perilous context is likely to trigger even greater violence and escalate conflict nationwide.”

Already, there are moves to further quash dissent ahead of the poll.

A new law criminalizes criticism of the election, threatening long prison sentences for those opposing or disrupting the vote. And a new cybercrime law expands the regime’s online surveillance powers, banning unauthorized use of VPNs and targeting users who access or share content from prohibited social media sites.
Like ‘putting old wine in a new bottle’

Min Aung Hlaing recently formed a new governing body, the National Security and Peace Commission (NSPC), replacing the previous State Administration Council.

The junta chief also has added chairman of the new regime to the roster of titles he now holds, which includes acting President and chief of the armed forces. And the new interim administration is stacked with loyalists and active military officers.

The move was “nothing more than an old trick — putting old wine in a new bottle,” said Ye Myo Hein.

“The military has used such tactics many times throughout its history to create the illusion of change… The military junta, led by Min Aung Hlaing, remains firmly in the driver’s seat.”

It has been here before.

Myanmar has been governed by successive military regimes since 1962, turning a once prosperous nation into an impoverished pariah state home to some of the world’s longest running insurgencies.

A military soldier (L) stands in front of a pile of seized illegal drugs during a destruction ceremony in Yangon on June 26, 2025. - Sai Aung Main/AFP/Getty Images

In 2008, the military regime pushed ahead with constitutional reform that paved the way for a semi-civilian government to take power, while preserving its significant influence on the country’s politics.

What followed was a decade of limited democratic reform and freedoms that brought greater foreign investment –- including the return of global brands like Coca-cola – and engagement with western nations. A generation of young Myanmar nationals began to dream of a different future to their parents and grandparents, as investment and opportunities poured in.

But the military never really gave up political power.

When state counselor Aung San Suu Kyi’s party stormed to a second term victory in the 2020 election, it came as a surprise to some military figures, who had hoped their own proxy party might take power democratically.

The former democracy icon was detained during a coup the following year, tried by a military court and sentenced to 27 years in prison. The 80-year-old’s exact whereabouts is still a tightly guarded secret, and the junta has sought to ensure Suu Kyi and her popular, but now dissolved, NLD party would be politically wiped out.
International recognition

By presenting itself as a civilian government, analysts say the military will also try to convince some countries to normalize ties.

Russia and China are two of Myanmar’s biggest backers, and Thailand and India have pushed for more engagement with the junta to end the crisis on their borders.

China’s foreign ministry last Thursday said it “supports Myanmar’s development path in line with its national conditions and Myanmar’s steady advancement of its domestic political agenda.”

In recent weeks, Min Aung Hlaing had unexpectedly good news from the US.

A letter from the Trump administration detailing its new tariff rates was spun domestically by the junta leader as increased engagement.

Then, the Trump administration dropped sanctions on several companies and individuals responsible for supplying weapons to Myanmar, prompting outcry from the UN Special Rapporteur for Myanmar Tom Andrews who called the moved “unconscionable and a major step backward for efforts to save innocent lives.”

Members of Ta'ang National Liberation Army (TNLA) receive military equipment after getting special combat training in a secret jungle near Namhkam, Myanmar's northern Shan State on November 9, 2024. - Stringer/AFP/Getty Images

Myanmar’s Ministry of Information has also signed a $3 million a year deal with Washington lobbying firm DCI Group to help rebuild relations with the US, Reuters news agency recently reported. The group, as well as the US Treasury Department, the US State Department, and Myanmar’s Washington embassy did not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.

Democracy supporters opposed to the junta have warned the international community against falling for the military’s election plan, and say such a poll will never be accepted by the people.

Min Aung Hlaing and his junta “have sucked all the resources and money than can and the country has nothing left,” said Mi Kun Chan Non, the women’s activist.

“Everything has fallen apart … The education system has collapsed; the healthcare system has collapsed. Business is just for the cronies.”

So, any future peace negotiations that follow the elections, “we can never trust,” she said.

“And the situation of the people on the ground will not change.”

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

China's catastrophic South China Sea crash shows how dangerous high-risk moves at sea can be

Chris Panella
Sat, August 16, 2025 

China's ship collision in the South China Sea is the result of dangerous behavior at sea, experts said.

High-risk maneuvers are becoming more common in the strategic waterway.

The latest incident stood out because of the involvement of a Chinese destroyer.

The collision of two Chinese vessels in the South China Sea this week was dramatic — and, according to China watchers, predictable.

For years, China's military, coast guard, and maritime militia have been accused of using aggressive tactics such as close-range intercepts, blocking runs, chases, and water cannon harassment to assert control over contested waters. These maneuvers make accidents like Monday's crash, which saw a destroyer crush a coast guard cutter, much more likely.

"It is part of China's standard operating procedure to intentionally engage in unsafe behavior and create risks of collision at sea and in the air," said Gregory Poling, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank and director of the Southeast Asia Program and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative there.

A disastrous collision

A China Coast Guard ship (R) sailed past a Philippine Coast Guard (L) during a supply mission to Sabina Shoal in disputed waters of the South China Sea on August 26, 2024.JAM STA ROSA/AFP via Getty ImagesMore

On Monday, the Philippine Coast Guard shared footage of China Coast Guard vessel 3104 in hot pursuit of the Philippine patrol ship BRP Suluan at high speeds while spraying a water cannon about 11 nautical miles east of the contested Scarborough Shoal.

As the cutter closed in on the BRP Suluan, a larger Chinese Navy destroyer crossed the bow of the cutter, which, unable to maneuver out of the way, violently slammed into the warship. The video showed both Chinese vessels afterward with significant hull damage, though only the coast guard ship was effectively crippled.

Before the crash, the destroyer and cutter appeared to criss-cross in the water repeatedly in their pursuit of the Philippine vessel.

Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson Jay Tarriela said that the Chinese coast guard vessel "performed a risky maneuver," leading to the impact. He said the damage to the Chinese cutter's forecastle rendered it unseaworthy.

In the aftermath, China watchers said the incident was caused by reckless Chinese actions in the South China Sea, pointing to a pattern of behavior that raises the risk of collisions. China has been repeatedly accused of violating the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

"When the operational culture of a navy/coast guard is to habitually violate COLREGS and norms of professionalism, this is the tragic result," Lyle Morris, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute's Center for China Analysis, wrote of Monday's collision on social media.

"Normally, such an incident would lead to reassessments of operational safety to ensure such accidents do not happen again," he said, adding that he doesn't expect that to happen here.

Increasingly dangerous, high-risk maneuvers at sea

A Chinese Coast Guard ship fired a water cannon at a Philippine Navy-chartered vessel conducting a routine resupply mission to troops stationed at Second Thomas Shoal in March 2024.Ezra Acayan/Getty ImagesMore

Water cannon blasts. Close-quarters tailing. High-speed chases and cut-offs. As China has sought to enforce its contested claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea, which are considered to be inconsistent with international law, the Philippines has documented repeated incidents of Chinese coast guard ships harassing vessels. Some confrontations have escalated to the point of injuries among Philippine crews.

Lyle Goldstein, director of the Asia Program at Defense Priorities and the director of the China Initiative at Brown University's Watson Institute, told Business Insider that these risky activities have seemed to increase in the last decade, which "partly reflects the fact that China has more and more maritime and aerial might to flaunt in these situations."

Some of these actions — such as water cannon blasts or unsafe maneuvers — are known as "grey zone" tactics: operations that assert control without crossing the threshold into open conflict. But because they don't follow established maritime safety protocols, experts say, they raise the likelihood of accidents and miscalculations.

"Water cannons, dangerous ramming maneuvers, and other unsafe actions have become the new normal," said Christopher Sharman, a retired US Navy captain and the director of the China Maritime Studies Institute at the US Naval War College, who spoke to Business Insider in his own capacity.

Why this clash stands out

Chinese aircraft carriers Liaoning and Shandong in formation exercise in the South China SeaSun Xiang/Xinhua via Getty Images

This week's severe crash reflects an escalation, China watchers said, most notably because it involved a Type 052D destroyer, a multi-role guided-missile ship, rather than the usual suspects.

In previous incidents, China has often relied solely on its coast guard, or even the maritime militia masquerading as a fishing fleet, for assertive acts in the South China Sea, leaving naval forces on standby. Under Chinese law, the coast guard has broad authority to enforce maritime authority and sovereignty.

Keeping warships out of physical contact lowers the chance of miscalculation that could escalate quickly.

The Chinese Navy destroyer's involvement in this clash, which saw the warship continue its pursuit of the smaller Philippine ship even after it crushed the Coast Guard vessel, stands out.

This is a rarer and riskier choice operationally that signals the contests in the South China Sea, long considered a flash point, are becoming more dangerous.

Sharman said its "deployment appears to be a calculated political decision from Beijing," one potentially aimed at punishing Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos after his comments last week that Manila would be drawn into any conflict involving Taiwan due to its proximity to the island and the substantial number of Philippine workers there.

Either way, the warship's direct involvement suggests China may now be willing to risk high-value assets in front-line harassment roles.

Had the Chinese destroyer smashed into the Philippine vessel instead of the Chinese coast guard cutter, this incident could have kicked off a major conflict, Goldstein said. The Philippines is an important US ally and defense partner.

It could have also resulted in a significant loss of life. It's unclear whether any Chinese coast guard personnel were injured or killed. In the video, a few sailors could be seen on the bow of the 3104 just before it hit the destroyer. Tarriela said the Philippine crew offered to assist in the search and rescue. China did not respond.

China has made no official statement on the collision, the state of its vessels, or whether there were any casualties.

The Chinese embassy in the US referred Business Insider to a recent foreign ministry press briefing, during which the ministry spokesman accused the Philippines of engaging in "hazardous maneuvers," such as "high-speed charges and sharp turns toward the bows of Chinese ships, leading to a complex and tense situation."

What's next

A Chinese fighter jet conducting "a coercive and risky" intercept of a US aircraft over the South China Sea on June 23, 2022.US Defense Department

The US and its allies have documented hundreds of unsafe Chinese actions in the air and at sea, from chases to clashes to unsafe intercepts, over the years. One particularly notable incident at sea occurred in 2018 and involved the US Navy.

That year, a Chinese navy destroyer came dangerously close to colliding with a US Navy warship, coming within just 45 yards of the American ship after aggressively closing with it in the South China Sea. The US said at that time that China was engaging in "increasingly aggressive maneuvers."

Now, questions remain on whether China will reassess its tactics to avoid future clashes. Some China watchers note that because so many of China's efforts have been viewed as successful within Beijing, China may double down on its current strategy and continue its pressure campaign.

Following the crash on Monday, a Chinese fighter jet engaged in what the Philippines characterized as "dangerous" moves near one of its aircraft.

"If China doesn't change its behavior," Poling said, "one of the accidents will cause a fatality, which could spark military escalation that no side wants."

Business Insider

Trump approval rating takes another hit in latest poll

Lauren Sforza
Sun, August 17, 2025 


Donald Trump's poll numbers have taken another hit.

President Donald Trump’s approval rating slipped again in the latest Pew Research Center poll released Thursday.

The Pew Research Center poll found that Trump’s approval rating has dropped three percentage points over the past two months and is down nine points since shortly after he took office. The poll ultimately found that Trump had a 38% approval rating among all Americans, which is down from the 47% approval rating in January.

The poll found Trump’s approval rating also dropped among those who voted for him since taking office earlier this year. Trump’s approval rating among his own supporters fell from 95% recorded earlier this year to 85% in the latest poll.


The Pew Research Center found that an overwhelming majority of those who identify as strong Republicans still approve of how he is handling his job as president. About 93% approve of his job performance, slightly down from the 96% who said the same shortly after he took office.

The research center highlighted a significant change in approval among certain Republican-leaning groups.

The research center noted that there has been “substantial erosion in his approval over this period among those who identify as Republicans but not strongly, as well as among independents who lean toward the GOP.”

“About six-in-ten of those in these groups approve of Trump’s performance today, down from roughly three-quarters at the start of his second term,” the research center wrote in its press release.

The Pew Research Center also found that public assessments of Trump’s personality traits have also fallen off since 2024.

More from the research center:

Fewer now say he cares about the needs of ordinary people (37% today, 42% last summer), is a good role model (29% now, 34% then) or is mentally sharp (48% now, 53% then).

Trump is widely described as standing up for what he believes in: 68% say this today, identical to the share who said this last summer.

The poll was conducted among 3,554 adults from Aug. 4 to 10, 2025. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 1.8 percentage points.

NJ.com.

What is President Donald Trump's current approval rating? See the most recent polls

Laura Daniella Sepulveda, Kinsey Crowley and Samantha Neely, 

Arizona Republic
Sat, August 16, 2025 a




President Donald Trump’s approval ratings continue to sink near record lows as he faces a week marked by tense diplomacy, legal battles and partisan fights over political maps.

On Friday, Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, hoping to reach a deal to end the three-year war in Ukraine.

While Trump called the talks “extremely productive,” the summit ended without a resolution on the most important issue. “We had an extremely productive meeting and many points were agreed to,” Trump said in a short statement to the media without taking questions. “One is probably the most significant. … We didn’t get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had urged President Trump to take a strong stance. Trump said before the meeting he might consider U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine and has in the past threatened economic penalties on Russia. He was yet to speak with Zelenskyy after the summit.

Also on Friday, the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against Trump over his federal takeover of the city’s police force, calling the move “brazen” and saying it has caused "operational havoc" within the department.

Meanwhile, Trump’s political operatives continue to pressure Republicans in Texas, Florida and Ohio to redraw congressional maps in ways that could favor Republicans ahead of the 2026 elections. The strategy has drawn pushback from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who announced Thursday a special election to advance his own redistricting plan and renewed calls for a national ban on partisan gerrymandering.

Here's what to know about Trump's approval rating, including how they are decided and how Trump's ratings compare with his first term and past presidents.
What is Donald Trump's approval rating?

Here are the latest approval ratings released about Trump's administration:


A state-by-state survey released on Aug. 12 by the Morning Consult showed that while Trump's approval rating nationally remains historically low, he still holds a positive approval rating in 27 states.


According to the New York Times' daily average of polls, last updated on Aug. 15, Trump held a 44% approval and 53% disapproval ratings.


A Reuters/Ipsos poll reported that, as of July 20, 40% of those surveyed gave him a favorable approval rating of his performance in office.


The Economist shows that 42% of people are favorable of Trump and 54% are unfavorable of him, according to the latest update from Aug. 15.


A Rasmussen Reports poll from Aug. 15 showed 49% approval and 49% disapproval of Trump.


A Morning Consult poll updated Aug. 11 showed 45% approve and 51% disapprove.


The American Research Group poll from July 17-20 showed 38% approve and 59% disapprove.

Trump has a positive approval rating in 27 states

Trump's approval rating is above water in 27 states, according to an Aug. 12 update from Morning Consult, which gathers polls over the course of three months to get a look at state-level data among registered voters. The number of states who approve of Trump is unchanged from July's update.

Trump is most popular by Morning Consult in Wyoming, where 66% of voters approve of his job performance, and least popular in Vermont, where 64% disapprove of his job performance.

In the political sphere: Mayor Gallego, Sen. Kelly paint bleak future for uninsured Arizonans
What is Trump's approval rating in Arizona?

Arizona was the only state in the Morning Consult's survey with a neutral net approval rating, meaning exactly half of the voters who were surveyed approve of his job performance, and the other half don't.
How does Trump's approval rating compare with his 1st term?

Trump had a final approval rating of 34% when he left office in 2021. His approval average during his first term was 41%.
How does Trump's approval rating compare with past presidents?

Joe Biden - 40%


Donald Trump (first term) - 34%


Barack Obama - 59%


George W. Bush - 34%


Bill Clinton - 66%


George H.W. Bush - 56%


Ronald Reagan - 63%


Jimmy Carter - 34%


Gerald Ford - 53%


Richard Nixon - 24%
Are presidential approval ratings accurate?

Data agency Gallup notes that these approval ratings are a "simple measure, yet a very powerful one that has played a key role in politics for over 70 years."

A president’s approval rating reflects the percentage of Americans polled who approve of the president’s performance. Anything can impact a president's rating, such as legislation passed, actions and elections.

According to ABC News, an approval rating doesn't just represent how well the administration is doing for the general public, but could determine the outcome of an upcoming election for a politician or how much they get done during their time in office.

While these ratings are easy to understand, Quorum says some analysts believe they are not as useful as they once were due to extreme partisanship and the polarized political climate.

“Presidential approval ratings have always been partisan, with members of the president’s party offering more positive assessments than those in the opposing party,” according to the Pew Research Center. “But the differences between Republicans and Democrats on views of the president have grown substantially in recent decades.”

USA TODAY Network reporter Maria Francis contributed to this article.

Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody

Associated Press
Sat, August 16, 2025 


Children play soccer at a US government holding center for migrant children in Carrizo Springs, Texas on July 9, 2019. - Eric Gay/AP/File


A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration’s request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody.

US District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody.

Gee called last week’s hearing “déjà vu” after reminding the court of the federal government’s attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday’s order.

“There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants’ motion on that basis alone,” Gee wrote, referring to the government’s appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement.

In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement.

Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, “These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.”

Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump’s tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities.

Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. “But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that’s essentially void,” he said last week.

The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the US government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s.

The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long US Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children.

The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs.

In arguing against the Trump administration’s effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April.

The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz,” where a lawsuit alleges detainees’ constitutional rights are being violated.

Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement’s terms.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

'THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING'

Despite Trump’s tough tone now, things were much worse in Washington when the National Guard was rolled out in 1968

Andy Rose, CNN
Sun, August 17, 2025 


National Guard troops stand on 9th Street between L and M Streets in the northwest section of Washington, DC, on April 6, 1968. - Bob Schutz/AP

Fear in the streets. Buildings burning. Law enforcement struggling to tamp down violence and control chaos.

It’s the kind of scene that has brought a federal military response to US cities in the past. And it’s a vision of Washington, DC, that President Donald Trump is invoking to bring the military to the city’s streets today.

“It’s becoming a situation of complete and total lawlessness,” Trump said in a news conference last week, announcing his plans to federalize law enforcement in the capital – including the deployment of 800 National Guard troops.

While the government has announced some arrests this week – many of them immigration offenses – the scene in Washington has been a far cry from the description Trump gave when announcing the federal law enforcement takeover, saying the District “has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals.”

Since their arrival this week, members of the guard have spent much of their time posted near landmarks and standing next to armored vehicles, amiably obliging tourists who request selfies.

It’s a noticeably different situation than the chaotic one that prompted the biggest military callup in Washington since the Civil War – the 1968 riots following the assassination of civil rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., in Tennessee.

“You saw smoke, and you saw flames. And you see cars speeding by. ‘There’s a riot! The city’s burning!’” said Brig Owens in a 2014 interview for an oral history project. Owens, who died in 2022, was a player for Washington’s NFL team who was called up for active duty with the guard during the riots.

A burned-out building, which was destroyed by arsonists during a night of burning and looting triggered by the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., is seen on April 6, 1968. - Bettmann Archive/Getty ImagesMore

“It was as if war had come to the city. At least for a small kid, that’s the way it felt,” Washington, DC, historian John DeFerrari, who was 10 years old at the time, told CNN.

“I remember being out and playing in the front yard of our house and seeing a military Jeep come by on patrol. Two soldiers there. A machine gun mounted.”
Locals dispute dire descriptions

To hear the president tell it, the situation in Washington is just as dire today.

“People are so happy to see our military going into DC and getting these thugs out,” Trump said.

But many local elected officials are expressing less enthusiasm for the federal action and the impression the president is giving of the District.

“One thing that has everybody pretty mad, especially me, is the characterization of our city and our residents,” responded Mayor Muriel Bowser. “We don’t live in a dirty city. We don’t have neighborhoods that should be bulldozed.”

After spiking in 2023, violent crime in Washington has been on the decline, according to Metropolitan Police Department records.

“He’s painted this dystopian vision, and it just doesn’t track with the facts on the ground,” DC Councilmember Charles Allen told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Thursday.

The National Guard was last mobilized in DC in 2020 during Black Lives Matter protests. Guard mmembers famously helped to clear out demonstrators as President Trump made his way across Lafayette Square to hold a Bible in front of a vandalized church. There has been a dispute over whether the guard was already planning to move protesters away from the White House or was specifically clearing a path for the president’s photo opportunity.

Before 2020, the guard and its predecessor – the DC Militia – were placed on federal active duty only 10 times in the District, according to the Congressional Research Service, including a multiyear deployment during the Civil War.

National Guard members take a break from the heat at the Lincoln Memorial while protesters demonstrate against police brutality and racism in Washington, DC, on June 6, 2020. - Win McNamee/Getty Images

MLK’s death brings anger to the streets

King’s assassination in Memphis on April 4, 1968, was a shock to the world. But it was felt as a shattering blow in Washington, which had the highest percentage of Black residents of any major US city at the time, according to The Washington Post.

Paul Delaney, cofounder of the National Association of Black Journalists, was a reporter for The Washington Star newspaper at the time and knew the bottled-up rage of the community – already dealing with “white flight” and underinvestment – could explode at the news.

“I drove up and sure enough, groups of protestors had formed on 14th Street near Pitts Motel,” Delaney, who is now 92 years old, told CNN. “They began marching to U Street and began breaking windows, looting, etc. I marched with them, hiding my notebook so they wouldn’t think I was a cop or some kind of spy. This went on through the night.”

Within hours, businesses were in flames. Hundreds would ultimately be looted or torched, The New York Times reported, as fury over King’s death expressed itself in the devastation of the several neighborhoods, including the historically Black community of Shaw.

By the weekend, the DC National Guard was part of a deployment of more than 13,000 soldiers – most of them full-time Army and Marines – trying to bring the emotionally exhausted city under control.

“You had little mobs throughout the city, and you have to be aware of what those consequences could be if you get caught up in that mob,” Owens said.

In contrast to the current administration, President Lyndon B. Johnson was reluctant to immediately bring the federal military onto the streets of the nation’s capital, waiting a full day before invoking the Insurrection Act to mobilize troops.

A National Guard soldier stands at the corner of 4th and H Streets in northeast Washington, DC, on April 6, 1968. - AP

“But then you had lots of destruction, lots of fires going on. Firemen were being harassed to some degree by the rioters,” said DeFerrari. “So, the local police chief and the mayor said listen, we need federal help to control this situation.”

Before calm was restored to the community after four days, more than 6,000 people were arrested, according to the National Archives, and 13 were dead. Most of the victims died in burned or collapsed buildings, The Washington Post reported.

“You had to be very careful walking through the various neighborhoods, and you didn’t know if someone was going to throw something at you or if someone was going to take a shot at you,” Owens said. “Very intense time.”

After the violence was brought under control, President Johnson toured the damage from the air, Secret Service agent Clint Hill, then head of the president’s protective detail, told The Washington Post in 2018.

“It was quite a sight to behold. It was unbelievable. A major portion of the city had actually burned, and it’s something I’ll never forget,” said Hill, who was was tragically familiar with witnessing tragic events. Only five years earlier, Hill had rescued Jacqueline Kennedy in a moving limousine after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in a Dallas motorcade.

“(The riots) left this pall over the community,” said DeFerrari. “Devastation and a sense of the old community being lost, and what is the replacement of that?”

Troops patrol a downtown street in Washington, DC, after President Johnson ordered them in to help police on April 5, 1968. - Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
Trump tests limits of his authority

It is the second time this year President Trump has posted guard members on the streets of a city whose leaders didn’t ask for it. The president federalized 4,000 California National Guard troops in June in response to immigration protests in downtown Los Angeles that had turned confrontational with federal agents.

Gov. Gavin Newsom sued the Trump administration, contesting Trump’s legal ability to take over the state guard without an open “rebellion” against the government. A judge is considering whether to declare that the president’s action illegal following a three-day bench trial.

But circumstances are much different in Washington, a federally controlled district that does not have the same constitutional protections as states.

“Yes, the president can deploy the National Guard in DC, and they are allowed to perform law enforcement functions,” said CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

Still, even the president does not have unilateral control over the city. By law, Trump cannot extend his 30-day takeover of DC law enforcement without the approval of Congress, which is on its summer recess, unless he declares a national emergency.

The District’s attorney general, Brian Schwalb, filed suit against the Trump administration Friday, arguing the president has already exceeded his authority by trying to force the Metropolitan Police Department to accept a new “emergency commissioner,” something Schwalb called a “hostile takeover” of the department.

It took decades of redevelopment and gentrification, but the communities left in ruins after the 1968 uprising now show no visible signs of the violence that upended the city.

DC’s Shaw neighborhood is now billed by the city’s marketing organization as filled with “cool local shops, foodie restaurants, concert halls and African American history.” Row houses in what were once considered dangerous streets now sell for more than a million dollars.

For those who have seen the devastation and rebuilding of the city up close, the decision to call in the military now is especially troubling.

“I think there very clearly is not an emergency in many Washingtonians’ minds,” said DeFerrari. “I think many Washingtonians think that this is quite unnecessary.”

A member of the US National Guard walks past military vehicles on the National Mall in Washington, DC, on August 14, 2025. - Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

Republicans look to make a U-turn on federal commitment to electric vehicles for the Postal Service

SUSAN HAIGH
Sun, August 17, 2025


One of the U.S. Postal Service's new zero-emission electric Next Generation Delivery Vehicles (NGDV) is displayed in front of the organization's headquarters in Washington, on Aug. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Susan Haigh)ASSOCIATED PRESS

One of the U.S. Postal Service's new zero-emission electric Next Generation Delivery Vehicles (NGDV) is displayed in front of the organization's headquarters in Washington, on Aug. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Susan Haigh)ASSOCIATED PRESS

FILE - American Postal Workers Union President Mark Dimondstein speaks at a rally, Oct. 8, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)ASSOCIATED PRESS

FILE - Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, speak to reporters after a closed-door meeting with fellow Republicans, at the Capitol in Washington, Sept. 24, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)ASSOCIATED PRESS

FILE - Mail delivery vehicles are charged at a post office in Athens, Ga., Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024. (AP Photo/Ron Harris, File)ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — A year after being lauded for its plan to replace thousands of aging, gas-powered mail trucks with a mostly electric fleet, the U.S. Postal Service is facing congressional attempts to strip billions in federal EV funding.

In June, the Senate parliamentarian blocked a Republican proposal in a major tax-and-spending bill to sell off the agency's new electric vehicles and infrastructure and revoke remaining federal money. But efforts to halt the fleet’s shift to clean energy continue in the name of cost savings.

Donald Maston, president of the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association, said canceling the program now would have the opposite effect, squandering millions of dollars.

“I think it would be shortsighted for Congress to now suddenly decide they’re going to try to go backwards and take the money away for the EVs or stop that process because that’s just going to be a bunch of money on infrastructure that’s been wasted," he said.

Beyond that, many in the scientific community fear the government could pass on an opportunity to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to global warming when urgent action is needed.

Electrified vehicles reduce emissions

A 2022 University of Michigan study found the new electric postal vehicles could cut total greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20 million tons over the predicted, cumulative 20-year lifetime of the trucks. That's a fraction of the more than 6,000 million metric tons emitted annually in the United States, said professor Gregory A. Keoleian, co-director of the university's Center for Sustainable Systems. But he said the push toward electric vehicles is critical and needs to accelerate, given the intensifying impacts of climate change.

“We’re already falling short of goals for reducing emissions,” Keoleian said. “We’ve been making progress, but the actions being taken or proposed will really reverse decarbonization progress that has been made to date.”

Many GOP lawmakers share President Donald Trump's criticism of the Biden-era green energy push and say the Postal Service should stick to delivering mail.

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said “it didn't make sense for the Postal Service to invest so heavily in an all-electric force." She said she will pursue legislation to rescind what is left of the $3 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act allocated to help cover the $10 billion cost of new postal vehicles.

Ernst has called the EV initiative a “boondoggle” and "a textbook example of waste,” citing delays, high costs and concerns over cold-weather performance.

“You always evaluate the programs, see if they are working. But the rate at which the company that’s providing those vehicles is able to produce them, they are so far behind schedule, they will never be able to fulfill that contract," Ernst said during a recent appearance at the Iowa State Fair, referring to Wisconsin-based Oshkosh Defense.

“For now,” she added, "gas-powered vehicles — use some ethanol in them — I think is wonderful.”

Corn-based ethanol is a boon to Iowa's farmers, but the effort to reverse course has other Republican support.

Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, a co-sponsor of the rollback effort, has said the EV order should be canceled because the project "has delivered nothing but delays, defective trucks, and skyrocketing costs.”

The Postal Service maintains that the production delay of the Next Generation Delivery Vehicles, or NGDVs, was “very modest" and not unexpected.

“The production quantity ramp-up was planned for and intended to be very gradual in the early months to allow time for potential modest production or supplier issues to be successfully resolved,” spokesperson Kim Frum said.

EVs help in modernization effort

The independent, self-funded federal agency, which is paid for mostly by postage and product sales, is in the middle of a $40 billion, 10-year modernization and financial stabilization plan. The EV effort had the full backing of Democratic President Joe Biden, who pledged to move toward an all-electric federal fleet of car and trucks.

The “Deliver for America” plan calls for modernizing the ground fleet, notably the Grumman Long Life Vehicle, which dates back to 1987 and is fuel-inefficient at 9 mpg. The vehicles are well past their projected 24-year lifespan and are prone to breakdowns and even fires.

“Our mechanics are miracle workers,” said Mark Dimondstein, president of the American Postal Workers Union. “The parts are not available. They fabricate them. They do the best they can.”

The Postal Service announced in 2022 it would deploy at least 66,000 electric vehicles by 2028, including commercial off-the-shelf models, after years of deliberation and criticism it was moving too slowly to reduce emissions. By 2024, the agency was awarded a Presidential Sustainability Award for its efforts to electrify the largest fleet in the federal government.

Building new postal trucks

In 2021, Oshkosh Defense was awarded a contract for up to 165,000 battery electric and internal combustion engine Next Generation vehicles over 10 years.

The first of the odd-looking trucks, with hoods resembling a duck’s bill, began service in Georgia last year. Designed for greater package capacity, the trucks are equipped with airbags, blind-spot monitoring, collision sensors, 360-degree cameras and antilock brakes.

There's also a new creature comfort: air conditioning.

Douglas Lape, special assistant to the president of the National Association of Letter Carriers and a former carrier, is among numerous postal employees who have had a say in the new design. He marvels at how Oshkosh designed and built a new vehicle, transforming an old North Carolina warehouse into a factory along the way.

“I was in that building when it was nothing but shelving,” he said. “And now, being a completely functioning plant where everything is built in-house — they press the bodies in there, they do all of the assembly — it’s really amazing in my opinion.”

Where things stand now

The agency has so far ordered 51,500 NGDVs, including 35,000 battery-powered vehicles. To date, it has received 300 battery vehicles and 1,000 gas-powered ones.

Former Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said in 2022 the agency expected to purchase chiefly zero-emissions delivery vehicles by 2026. It still needs some internal combustion engine vehicles that travel longer distances.

Frum, the Postal Service spokesperson, said the planned NGDV purchases were "carefully considered from a business perspective” and are being deployed to routes and facilities where they will save money.

The agency has also received more than 8,200 of 9,250 Ford E-Transit electric vehicles it has ordered, she said.

Ernst said it's fine for the Postal Service to use EVs already purchased.

“But you know what? We need to be smart about the way we are providing services through the federal government,” she said. “And that was not a smart move.”

Maxwell Woody, lead author of the University of Michigan study, made the opposite case.

Postal vehicles, he said, have low average speeds and a high number of stops and starts that enable regenerative braking. Routes average under 30 miles and are known in advance, making planning easier.

“It’s the perfect application for an electric vehicle," he said, “and it’s a particularly inefficient application for an internal combustion engine vehicle.”

____

Associated Press writer Hannah Fingerhut in Des Moines, Iowa, contributed to this report.

Trump says tariffs are going to be enough to pay down national debt. It likely won’t even touch the sides

Eleanor Pringle
Sun, August 17, 2025 

FORTUNE


President Trump says his tariff revenues will both pay down America’s $37 trillion debt and possibly fund a public “dividend,” but Treasury data shows they fall short of even covering monthly interest costs. In exclusive interviews with Fortune, Wharton’s Professor Joao Gomes and AEI’s Desmond Lachman warned that while tariffs may slow debt growth, they won’t meaningfully reduce it. Markets are largely skeptical of Trump’s math despite some unconventional revenue wins.

President Trump has a two-pronged plan for the proceeds of his tariff regime. Firstly, he says, it’s going to pay down America’s $37 trillion national debt. Secondly, he’s considering sharing the spoils with the public.

“The purpose of what I’m doing is primarily to pay down debt, which will happen in very large quantity,” Trump told media earlier this month. “But I think there’s also a possibility that we’re taking in so much money that we may very well make a dividend to the people of America.”

The plan sounds welcome, in theory. But there’s just one problem. At present, tariff revenues don’t even cover the interest on the debt—let alone reduce its overall size.

According to Treasury data seen by Fortune, the accrued interest expense on Treasury notes in July alone was $38.1 billion. Add to that $13.9 billion in interest on Treasury bonds, $2.85 billion on Treasury Floating Rate Notes (FRN) and a total of $6.1 billion across Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) assets. The bill is eye-watering: The total comes to $60.95 billion for the month.

By contrast, Treasury statements show that tariffs only brought in $29.6 billion to offset it. An impressive figure, but still not enough to rival interest payments.

Of course, the White House could pay off some of its debt and reduce interest payments by deploying the tariff revenues directly to the bottom line. Governments have a number of ways to pay off debt, either by paying off bonds at maturity instead of rolling them over, or launching a buyback scheme in order to retire the bonds and reduce total outstanding debt.

It seems that the White House is not yet enacting a plan for the latter option. A tentative schedule of buyback operations for August 2025 shows the Treasury intends to spend nearly $40 billion buying back various security types and maturity ranges. However, compared to a similar schedule from August last year, this is $10 billion less than the Biden administration had accounted for.

Looking forward, if the Trump team does intend to pass through circa $30 billion a month toward offsetting the national debt, it would have accrued a gargantuan $360 billion payment over a year. This figure is less than 1% of America’s national debt, at the time of writing.

Of course, those on the bullish end of the economic scale are unconcerned by the notion of paying off national debt because a) the bond market forms a core part of the economy, b) the U.S. could grow its way out of any default or debt crisis, and c) the nation is in control of its own fate because its central bank has the ability to ease the cost of borrowing.

Nonetheless, warnings are coming from some of the most significant corners of the economy. In the private sector, JPMorgan Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon believes America is barreling towards a predictable crisis; in the public sector, Fed chairman Jerome Powell believes it’s time to have an “adult conversation” about debt.

And the president himself is clearly aware of the issue, pushing efficiency and cost-cutting to bring down deficits. The only problem is, economists can’t quite figure out his maths.

The White House told Fortune: “America’s debt-to-GDP ratio has actually declined since President Trump took office – and as the administration’s pro-growth policies of tax cuts, rapid deregulation, more efficient government spending, and historic trade deals continue taking effect and America’s economic resurgence accelerates, that ratio will continue trending in the right direction.


“That’s on top of the record revenue that President Trump’s tariff policies are bringing in for the federal government, and cooled inflation paving the way for interest rate cuts.”
Offsetting, not repaying

By Professor Joao Gomes’s calculations, President Trump’s tariff regime is netting his expenditure at zero as opposed to improving the balance sheet.

The Wharton professor of finance and economics (at President Trump’s alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania) believes the tariff income will offset the costs of the Oval Office’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act”—estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to add $3 trillion to the debt by 2030—and not go much further.

“They leave the national debt picture similar,” Professor Gomes tells Fortune in an exclusive interview. “The idea that [tariffs are] going to pay down the national debt is of course greatly overstating it.”

That being said, Professor Gomes said tariffs are likely to have some useful dragging effects on the speed at which America’s national debt is accumulating. The White House said it expects its bill to reduce the much-watched debt-to-GDP ratio to 94% from its current standing of 121% by increasing economic growth.

“There’s no question of us paying down the debt,” Professor Gomes added. “Every year the government needs $1.8 trillion of net new borrowing, so that number could go down, but before we have any questions about repaying we first need to close that gap—and 1.8 trillion is impossible to close … the best we could hope for is if the tariffs turn out to generate enormous amounts of revenue [and] reduce that annual budget gap, which would make the debt grow less quickly.”

“The idea that somehow in the debt is gonna go down, we’re gonna start buying things back and so on and reduce the debt in dollar terms is just unimaginable. We’ll never get that much revenue.”

Professor Gomes was echoed by Dr Desmond Lachman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He told Fortune in an exclusive interview: “[For Trump] to say that he’s going to raise maybe $300 billion is a drop in the ocean in relation to the amount of red ink they’ve got. The country’s on a really dangerous debt trajectory.”
Signals to markets

How much of a problem national debt proves to be ultimately comes down to foreign investors, and their confidence in the U.S. government’s ability to pay its bills. Approximately 26% of America’s debt is held by foreign countries according to The Conference Board, presenting significant issues if those investors decide to take flight.


Dr Lachman believes that while President Trump may be framing tariffs as bringing back jobs or paying off debt to be more politically palatable, investors will see through the rhetoric. “Markets aren’t dumb. They can do the arithmetic and figure out that this is nonsense,” he said.

The former deputy director for the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Policy Development and Review Department added that the continued flight to gold (prices are up 27% over the past year) is indicative that markets no longer view U.S. Treasuries as the ultimate safe haven.

“People are worried that this government’s not serious about economic policy,” Dr Lachman said. “Trump can say what he likes. A comment I think is great is: One thing about the bond markets is that they can’t be primaried. In bond market, the money’s gonna move. People just want to protect their cash, they’re not afraid of being bullied by Trump if the numbers don’t add up.”


Counter to Dr Lachman’s point is the fact Treasury yields have stayed relatively flat over the past couple of years. 10-year is at around 4.3%, and was the same in late-October 2022, while 30-year has hung around the 4.8% mark since 2023.

Due to this, Professor Gomes believes the market isn’t alarmed by the Trump team’s unorthodox methods of balancing the debt. He said: “There’s interesting and peculiar things about this that we’ve all noticed. For example, the news earlier this week that Nvidia is gonna give effectively a 15% tax to the federal government for any exports to China certainly brings an extra source of revenue to the government that is not going to be small.”

“The ability of this president and this administration to find strange ways” to generate revenue may convince markets of Trump 2.0’s sincerity when it comes to the debt, Professor Gomes added, “I’m not sure I would discount that ability to continue to do things that I would not support, and I don’t think [are] great ideas, but at the end of the day, you cannot deny that they bring strange forms of revenue that do change the debt picture.”


And while there are two ends of the spectrum on who will end up paying for the tariffs (at one end Trump, saying it will be foreign nations, at the other end the likes of Goldman Sachs says the majority of the prices will be paid by U.S. consumers), the administration is proving it can “extract revenues.”

“Whatever you think of the methods,” Professor Gomes added, “If it’s an issue they can find ways to do this.”
A turning point?

National debt is often described as a game of chicken played by one administration then the next, adding to the debt and risking crisis instead of introducing potentially unpopular policy to address it (austerity).

Trump’s unusual approach to revenue generation shouldn’t be viewed as an end to that game, said Professor Gomes, but merely a delay of any reckoning. “It seems clear that suspicious as [markets] are of the policies they feel confident that that’s not going to happen at the moment,” the economist said. “We would need something, some other event of some type—a serious war or conflict—the things that really change paradigms” to prompt such a crisis, he added.

The Conference Board is not so convinced. “The debt crisis is here” it said in a note shared with Fortune, outlining a six-step program to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio to 70% within 20 years. This includes, among a range of ideas, establishing a bipartisan committee for fiscal responsibility, enacting tax reform to increase revenues in a fair way, and develop a package of reform for social security.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Trump’s reciprocal tariffs could be struck down as soon as this month — and the administration is warning of economic apocalypse

Jason Ma
Sat, August 16, 2025

FORTUNE

President Donald Trump and his Justice Department have issued doomsday warnings recently on what would happen if a federal appeals court rules against the administration in a legal challenge to his so-called reciprocal tariffs. James Lucier at Alpha Capital Partners said the court could issue a ruling later this month or next month.


The Trump administration sees complete disaster for the U.S. economy if its reciprocal tariffs are struck down, revealing its level of concern as a court is expected to issue a critical decision soon.

On July 31, a federal appeals court heard arguments in a case challenging the tariffs’ legal basis under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), and the judges expressed deep skepticism about the administration’s side.

In a note this past week, James Lucier at Capital Alpha Partners said a decision is expected by the end of September, but could come as soon as late August. A unanimous or near-unanimous ruling could give the Supreme Court cover to avoid taking the case immediately and reject the administration’s request to issue a stay that would keep the tariffs in place in the meantime.


The dire warnings also represent “a remarkable change in tune by the administration, which until now has always insisted that it had legal authority to get the deals done one way or another even if the IEEPA tariffs were struck down,” he added.

Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs helped leverage a series of trade deals, including an agreement with the European Union, which pledged to invest $600 billion in the U.S. and buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy products, with “vast amounts” of American weapons in the mix. Similarly, the U.S.-Japan trade deal entails $550 billion of investments from Tokyo.
‘Financial ruin’

The U.S. hasn’t received immediate cash transfers in those amounts. Still, in a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday, Justice Department officials suggested the government would suddenly owe everyone money—leading to catastrophe.

“The President believes that our country would not be able to pay back the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to financial ruin,” wrote Solicitor General D. John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate.

They also warned that unwinding the trade deals would lead to a “1929-style result.” That echoed a post from Trump on Truth Social days earlier, when he predicted another Great Depression would hit America if the court rules against his tariffs.


Sauer and Shumate turned up the volume even higher in their subsequent letter, elaborating further on the depression warning.

“In such a scenario, people would be forced from their homes, millions of jobs would be eliminated, hard-working Americans would lose their savings, and even Social Security and Medicare could be threatened,” they wrote. “In short, the economic consequences would be ruinous, instead of unprecedented success.”

‘The president is in a jam’

To be sure, the government has generated significant tariff revenue since April, and importers who paid the reciprocal duties could seek reimbursement if they are struck down.

But that’s only about $100 billion and also includes revenue from sectoral tariffs that were imposed under a separate legal basis that’s not at risk.

“The real problem, the letter implies, is that Trump does not have legal authority to replicate the IEEPA tariffs under other tariff statutes if the court strikes the IEEPA tariffs down,” Lucier explained. “In other words, the president is in a jam because if the court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs, his trade deals have no legal basis.”

A note from Yardeni Research on Wednesday also pointed out that the administration is becoming increasingly concerned about losing the court case.

The letter from the Justice Department officials appears to anticipate that they will lose the case as they are asking for a stay if the court goes against them.

There will be “messy” consequences if reciprocal tariffs are struck down, according to Yardeni, as Trump needs the revenue from tariffs to reduce the budget deficit and help to lower bond yields.

“If he loses in court, these yields might move higher. Stock prices might decline on this news initially due to a new round of policy uncertainty,” the note said. “So the dire tone in the letter is understandable, even though it is a wee bit over the top.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com