Column: Trump promised he won’t cut Social Security. Should you trust him?
- Trump promised recently he’s “not touching” Social Security, a statement at odds with some of his own team members, and congressional Republicans.
- Experts warn that Republicans have a long history of attempting to cut benefits.
Hello and happy Tuesday. There are 41 days until Donald Trump moves back into the White House. Today, we’re looking ahead to what he might do with old people, specifically old people unlike himself who need Social Security to survive.
Over the weekend, the president-elect promised on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we’re not touching Social Security — other than we might make it more efficient.” That, he swore, includes eschewing previously floated ideas such as raising the retirement age.
“The people are going to get what they get,” he said, which sounds as much like a threat as a promise.
Republicans have long attempted to dismantle or curtail Social Security, dating to its inception in 1935. And despite Trump’s assurances, his fiscal attack dogs, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, were on Capitol Hill last week, leaving lawmakers suggesting that “everything is on the table” when it comes to cuts.
So what exactly might we get under Trump 2.0 when it comes to the country’s most popular social safety net? I asked the experts, so let’s dig in.
Why mess with Social Security at all?
Social Security is one of the most popular programs the government runs, with 87% of Americans — regardless of party — agreeing that protecting it should be a priority.
That’s because a lot of us, even middle-class savers, worry about what will happen once we can no longer work. So as much as Social Security is a combo forced savings/insurance policy that some on the right grouse about, it also holds a deep place in our psyche as the safety net that will catch us from falling into poverty in our senior years — even those of us who claim to hate government handouts.
Daniel Hamermesh, a professor emeritus of economics at University of Texas at Austin, points out that people talk cavalierly about Social Security not being around forever, but secretly have no other survival plan for their old age. For about 50% of Americans over age 65, Social Security accounts for about 50% of their income. For about a quarter of those, it’s 90% of their income.
A lot of people say they don’t expect Social Security, “but deep down, they’re relying on it,” he told me.
Which makes it politically insane to suggest doing away with it, as some on the right have done. About 68 million Americans, mostly through age or disability, receive checks each month. That’s a lot of ballots — which Trump clearly understands.
But there’s also this: Social Security is living on borrowed time.
“We know that the Social Security trust fund is going to run out of money, and that means something has to happen,” said Alan Auerbach, a professor of economics and law at UC Berkeley.
The trust fund will probably run dry by 2034. If nothing changes, benefits would then have to be cut.
(Forgive me, an earlier version of this newsletter said the system would run out of money — which my esteemed colleague Michael Hiltzik pointed out was inaccurate.)
Digging a deeper hole
Despite that chilling reality, Trump’s only detailed plan on Social Security so far is one that would put it deeper in the hole — ending taxes on benefits and tips.
That, warns Boston University professor of economics Laurence Kotlikoff, would bankrupt the system even quicker, since those taxes are revenue streams keeping it afloat.
But, he adds, ending taxes, especially for retirees, is a plan that’s “giving more and more money to older people who have nothing better to do on election day than vote.”
Which, of course, is good political sense, but leaves young people, as Kotlikoff succinctly summed it up, “screwed.”
Kotlikoff said the system can be fixed, but it would take drastic measures. He’d like to see an entirely new system put in place that allows younger workers to put some of their contributions into the market, yet still receive a guaranteed annuity when they retire.
Privatization of different varieties has long enamored Republicans, and some fear that may ultimately be Trump’s goal — in effect forcing the savings part without any insurance on returns.
Trump recently nominated Frank Bisignano, a financial services executive who is reportedly paid more than $100 million a year in the private sector, to run the Social Security Administration.
Bisignano said in a news release that he looks “forward to applying my experience to transform our social security system.”
And then there’s the DOGE dudes, Musk and Ramaswamy, who swear they are going to cut $2 trillion out of government spending, which would be difficult to do without touching Social Security.
“Good luck to them,” Auerbach said. He points out that the majority of government spending goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense.
“Nondefense discretionary spending is a pretty small share of the budget,” he said. “If you take $2 trillion out of that, you are talking about making it disappear.”
Translation: Billionaires transforming things rarely works out well for the little guy, and often doesn’t work out how the billionaires think it will.
But, to be fair, the last time Social Security was “transformed” was under Ronald Reagan. That actually didn’t turn out terribly and was surprisingly bipartisan at the end. After numerous threats of drastic cuts, Congress ended up, among other changes, raising the retirement age to 67 from 65, which gave the system some extended life.
Hamermesh said thoughtful bipartisan reform could save the system again. He sees two major fixes. First, raise the retirement age once more, as people are living longer.
Second, remove the cap that allows high earners to shield a large part of their wages from paying into the fund. In 2024, high earners paid Social Security tax only up to $168,600.
After that, their earnings weren’t taxed for Social Security purposes. Taxing those additional wages would go a long way toward stabilizing Social Security, Auerbach said — but Republicans hate taxing the rich as much as Democrats hate raising the retirement age.
“I can’t stress enough that there is a reasonable solution, darn it, but it costs everyone something politically,” Hamermesh said.
Cut or no cut?
Since bipartisanship is not my top expectation for the next four years, where does that leave us?
Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School in New York, predicts “malign neglect.”
She said she thinks Trump is likely to do nothing but simply sit back and watch the ship sink. This wouldn’t affect current benefits — or his aging base — since there’s enough money left for about a decade of payments. But it would make it excessively difficult for any future administration to save the program since the debt will be exponentially worse.
Doing nothing is a deliberate strategy “to shrink Social Security by default, leaving millions of Americans with reduced benefits,” Ghilarducci said in an email. “Trump is clever enough not to promote unpopular things like raising the retirement age (even though the Republican Study committee did) he is just running out the clock.”
Watching the ship sink is what Auerbach expects as well.
“If I had to pick one outcome that is most likely, I would say absolutely nothing would happen,” he said.
So should you trust Trump when he says the benefits of those currently receiving Social Security are safe? Yes. Almost certainly, those receiving checks now will not see the amount drop during Trump’s tenure.
But doing nothing with Social Security in the next four years may be the worst outcome of all — leaving dreaming-of-retirement workers in their 40s, 50s (and younger) paying into a system that can’t pay them back.
What else you should be reading:
The must-read: Want a Job in the Trump Administration? Be Prepared for the Loyalty Test.
The what’s next: A Top Syria Expert Explains Washington’s Next Move
The L.A. Times special: Schiff opposes a preemptive pardon from Biden as Trump again threatens sending him to jail
Stay golden,
Anita Chabria
P. S.: Wildlife photographer Mark Girardeau has been catching dramatic photos of humpback whales, which are unexpectedly showing up off the coast of Orange County as they follow schools of anchovies. Read our story about it here, or check out more of Girardeau’s photos.
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
