Trump’s Big Bill, Big Promises – But a Bust for Seniors

Pubished in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on July 8, 2025

After 48 relentless days of political maneuvering—marked by cajoling, backroom bargaining, strategic threats, and last-minute incentives to win over stubborn holdouts—President Donald Trump finally got his wish: Congress passed his prized “One Big Beautiful Bill” (H.R. 1), which he triumphantly signed into law on July 4, 2025.

On May 22, 2025, the House narrowly approved the sweeping 900-page bill by a vote of 215–214–1. Every House Democrat opposed the measure. Two Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Warren Davidson (R-OH), joined the opposition, while Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-MD) voted “present.” Two GOP lawmakers did not vote.

What’s In the Bill: Tax Breaks Up, Safety Nets Down

The legislation extends the 2017 individual tax cuts and adds new deductions for tips, overtime pay, auto loan interest, and “Trump Accounts” for children. It raises the SALT deduction cap to $40,000 for five years, increases the child tax credit, imposes a remittance levy, and taxes college endowment income.

On the spending side, H.R. 1 raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, slashes over $1 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare, expands work requirements for  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients, and allocates $150 billion each to defense and border enforcement—boosting ICE funding to over $100 billion by 2029.

Senate Republicans spent more than five weeks reviewing the House bill’s provisions to comply with the Byrd Rule, walking a tightrope between deficit hawks and moderates. After a marathon “vote-a-rama” that saw 46 amendment votes (only six of which passed), the Senate approved the bill 51–50 on July 1, with Vice President J.D. Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.

The reconciliation process allowed the Senate to pass the bill with a simple majority rather than the standard 60-vote threshold. When the bill returned to the House Speaker Mike Johnson and President Trump personally lobbied holdouts, linking support to other legislative priorities and negotiating procedural rules. Early on July 3, the House adopted the Senate version in a 218–214 vote, with only Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) voting with Democrats. The bill was sent to the White House and signed into law the following day.

Despite Republican praise, public reaction to Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has been largely negative. A KFF Health Tracking Poll found that 64% of Americans view H.R. 1 unfavorably, compared to 35% in support.

President Trump and GOP leaders hailed the bill as a historic conservative win that fulfills “America First” promises—cutting taxes, slashing regulations, boosting border security, promoting energy independence, and reducing federal spending. “This is a major victory for hardworking families,” said Rhode Island GOP Chair Joe Powers in a statement, praising the bill for delivering middle-class tax relief and real border control.

But Congressman Gabe Amo (D-RI), representing Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District, sees it differently and warns of the devastating consequences to aging programs and services.

“Trump’s big, ugly bill” shows that Republican lawmakers, following Trump’s marching orders, voted for “the largest theft in American history to further enrich the richest among us,” he says.

“Simply put, because of this horrific legislation, Americans will be poorer, sicker, hungrier, and further away from economic opportunity,” says the Rhode Island Congressman.

Deep Cuts and Dire Warnings from Aging Advocates

SACRI Policy Advisor Maureen Maigret emphasized the need for swift action in Rhode Island, stating, “It is crucial for the Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services to promptly convene the advisory group outlined in Section 8 of the state’s FY 2026 budget bill.”

“For years, SACRI has worked to ensure a balanced system of long-term services—supporting quality nursing home care, expanding access to affordable home and community-based services, and collaborating with the Office of Healthy Aging and other aging advocacy groups to promote healthy aging,” says Maigret.

SACRI, a statewide coalition advocating for older Rhode Islanders, has partnered with other organizations to make significant strides in these areas, according to Executive Director Carol Anne Costa. “We cannot allow this progress to be reversed, especially as older adults are the fastest-growing segment of the state’s population,” Costa says.

“We have sent a letter to Secretary Charest requesting that SACRI be included in the advisory group established by Article 8 of the state’s FY 2026 budget bill.”

Now accounting for nearly 20 percent of the total population, the number of Americans age 65 and older is steadily increasing.

“Make no mistake: this harmful, cold-hearted bill will wreak havoc on our country’s fragile aging services infrastructure—at a time when demand for the Medicare and Medicaid-supported services it delivers is growing,” warns Katie Smith Sloan, president and CEO of LeadingAge.

“This legislation deals a significant blow to a core element of our country’s social safety net: Medicaid,” adds Sloan, emphasizing that the consequences “will not be pretty.”

She further warns, “Due to the level of deficit this bill will create, Medicare payments to providers may be reduced by 4% for the next ten years.”

According to Sloan, the bandaids included in H.R. 1—such as freezing (but not reducing) nursing home provider taxes and creating a rural health transformation fund, both touted as protections for older adults and aging services providers—will soon prove ill-equipped to prevent the bill’s damage. As states begin to grapple with budget shortfalls caused by reduced federal Medicaid contributions, the suffering, she says, will begin.

Max Richtman, President & CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, warned that 16 million Americans may lose health coverage, and millions more could lose access to food assistance. He stressed the bill’s devastating effects on the 7.2 million seniors dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid and the 6.5 million older adults who rely on SNAP benefits.

“These beneficiaries are some of the most vulnerable members of our society — and Republicans have put them at risk in order to pay for another tax cut mainly for the rich,” he says.

AARP: Safety Nets Shredded, Protections Undermined

Although AARP expressed strong opposition to many provisions in the reconciliation bill, the organization did support several key measures. These included increased investment in affordable housing through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, raising the additional senior standard deduction to $6,000, and expanding the Section 45S tax credit for paid family and medical leave.

Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond criticized the bill’s cuts to Medicaid, ACA Marketplace coverage, and food assistance, calling them particularly harmful to older adults, rural residents, and family caregivers. She emphasized that over 17 million Americans aged 50 and older rely on Medicaid to remain in their homes and manage chronic health conditions.

“This is a moment to strengthen—not weaken—the supports that help people stay in their homes, access needed health care, and live with dignity and independence,” said LeaMond, representing nearly 38 million members nationwide.

She stressed that AARP remained strongly opposed to Senate provisions that would slash Medicaid, Marketplace coverage, and food assistance, making it harder for older adults to get by.

“More than 17 million Americans age 50 and older rely on Medicaid as a critical safety net to stay in their homes, manage chronic conditions, and afford long-term care,” says LeaMond. “By limiting how states fund their Medicaid programs, the new law threatens health care access—particularly for people in rural and underserved areas and through safety-net providers,” she adds.

LeaMond also expressed concern over delayed implementation of nursing home staffing standards, which are estimated to save 13,000 lives annually, and provisions allowing drug companies to continue charging high prices for certain orphan drugs—even while selling the same medicines overseas at far lower costs.

AARP opposes H.R. 1’s new burdens that could cost people their health care or food assistance when they are unable to work due to age discrimination, caregiving responsibilities, or chronic illness. “This will only make it harder for many older adults to access needed health care and to put food on the table,” she says.

She also warns that the new SNAP cost-sharing formula could shift billions in expenses to state budgets, forcing states to restrict eligibility, reduce benefits, or withdraw from the program entirely.

Finally, AARP strongly opposed the bill’s 10-year moratorium on state and local regulation of artificial intelligence (AI), arguing that it undermines consumer protections in employment, housing, and health care—leaving older adults more vulnerable to harm from biased or untested AI systems.

For additional information on H.R. 1’s impact on senior programs and service, visit: aarp.org/advocacy/fight-senate-cuts-medicaid-snap
aarp.org/advocacy/support-budget-bill-tax-proposals

Rhode Island Leads Nation with First Ever U.S. Menopause Workplace Protections

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on July 1, 2025

In 2012, Rhode Island became the first state to pass a Homeless Bill of Rights. Three years later, it led again by banning the use of bullhooks on elephants. In 2021, the state once more broke ground by establishing legally sanctioned, medically staffed drug injection facilities to combat overdose deaths. As the General Assembly concludes its 2025 session, lawmakers mark yet another national first—enacting workplace protections for women experiencing menopause.

Most women begin the menopause transition in their 40s or 50s, with symptoms typically lasting between three and seven years. During this time, they may experience hot flashes, insomnia, night sweats, migraines, heart palpitations, anxiety, panic attacks, brain fog, and other debilitating symptoms caused by declining estrogen. 

Many are unprepared for the onset and lack sufficient support or guidance—particularly when it comes to managing symptoms in the workplace.

Governor Dan McKee has signed into law legislation (S 0361), introduced by Sen. Lori Urso (D-Dist. 8, Pawtucket), to support women experiencing menopause under the state’s fair employment statute—making Rhode Island the first state to explicitly enact such workplace protections. A companion bill (H 6161) was introduced by Rep. Karen Alzate (D-Dist. 60, Pawtucket, Central Falls) and passed by concurrence.

Rhode Island law already prohibits workplace discrimination related to pregnancy, childbirth, and associated conditions. This includes requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations and protecting individuals from being denied employment opportunities or promotions—or from being terminated—due to these conditions. The new law adds menopause to this list of protected health conditions.

“Menopause is a difficult and personal subject that has been stigmatized in this country,” said Sen. Urso in a statement announcing the bill’s passage. “But as something that affects half our population, it’s time we recognize it as a workforce issue—especially as our workforce ages along with our population. The current lack of protections contributes to inadequate retirement savings and lost leadership opportunities for women and poses an economic challenge for employers facing workforce shortages and the loss of experienced employees,” she says.

“Menopause is not something women choose to experience, and its effects on the mind and body can significantly impact daily life and job performance,” said Rep. Alzate. “Women should not have to risk being penalized or discriminated against at work due to a naturally occurring biological transition.”

“Women’s health care is a vital component of a healthy workplace,” said Patrick Crowley, president of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO. “That’s why it’s essential to extend the fair employment practices law to include menopause-related conditions. All workers deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their health status.”

Madalyn McGunagle, policy associate at the Rhode Island ACLU, added, “Menopause is a natural and common phase of life, yet its symptoms can have profound and lasting impacts. By extending legal protections, we ensure women are afforded the accommodations they need to continue working effectively.”

Growing Recognition of Menopause in the Workplace

According to Urso, Rhode Island is home to 917,000 working-age residents. Of these, 13% are between the ages of 45 and 54, and 16.5% are between 55 and 65. The state has a higher percentage of older workers compared to the national average, with women representing 45% of workers aged 55 and older. Based on this data, it is estimated that there are 64,000 women between the ages of 45 and 54, and 35,000 women aged 55 to 59.

Urso further estimates that nearly 100,000 women in the state may experience menopausal symptoms at any given time, accounting for more than 10% of Rhode Island’s entire working-age population.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 75% of women in the U.S. labor force are working during their menopause transition years, making workplace engagement around women’s health issues vital.

“Addressing menopause in employment practices is critical because it affects employee well-being, retention, and productivity,” said Angela Lima, policy and advocacy program director at the Women’s Fund of Rhode Island. “These changes benefit both workers and employers.”

A Mayo Clinic study estimated that menopause symptoms cost U.S. businesses $1.8 billion in lost productivity annually. The study’s coauthors urged employers to update workplace policies to better support their female employees.

In Sept. 2024, Bloomberg news tackled the issue of menopause, putting the spotlight on millennial women.  The findings indicate that 70% of these individuals would consider either reducing their hours, changing jobs, or retiring early due to their symptoms.

Urso noted that this study also found that 61% expressed concerns about dealing with menopause while working, and a third worried it would damage their career  growth.  “If this is indeed the case, employers will lose more in the long-run if they’re losing leadership and trying to rehire in those situations,” she says.

And in Jan. 2024, January, the Society for Women’s Health Research released findings from its Employee Perspective and Challenges Concerning the Transition of Menopause (EMPACT Menopause) Study. The goal was to better understand the workplace experiences of those who have gone through menopause, as well as their colleagues and supervisors.

Key findings from the EMPACT study include:

  • 59% of women felt uncomfortable requesting accommodations.
  • Only 31% felt comfortable discussing menopause at work.
  • 2 in 5 women considered leaving or did leave their jobs due to symptoms.
  • 1 in 6 supervisors expressed discomfort providing accommodations.
  • While half of supervisors had spoken with employees about menopause, 14% had not but wanted to.

Bringing Menopause Out of the Closet

In her article “It’s Time to Address Menopause at Work,” Claire Hastwell, content program manager at Great Place to Work, calls for employers to support women with menopausal symptoms. She notes this can improve employee well-being, retention, and business outcomes.

“But women who grapple with menopause rarely find workplace support, official company guidelines, or a sympathetic ear,” she writes. “Employees experiencing menopause need to know their employer has their back. Without support, businesses risk losing some of their most senior and skilled workers.”

Supporting menopausal women in the workplace can enhance retention and engagement, boost productivity, reduce health risks, and improve morale, Hastwell adds.

It’s time to stop sweeping menopause under the carpet. Rhode Island’s new law creates a menopause-friendly workplace—and offers a model for other states to follow.

For a copy of the EMPACT Menopause Study, visit:
http://swhr.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/FINAL-Menopause-Workplace-Fact-Sheet-02012024.pdf

To read more on creating supportive workplaces, visit:
https://www.greatplacetowork.com/resources/blog/support-menopausal-women-workplace

With the Latest SSA Trustee Report Released, Congress Must Act Now to Fix Social Security

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on June 24, 2025

Just before Medicare celebrates its 60th anniversary this July and Social Security marks its 90th birthday in August, the Social Security Board of Trustees recently released its annual report on the financial status of the Social Security Trust Funds.

According to this year’s estimate, by 2033, projected revenues will only cover 77% of scheduled benefits—unless Congress takes action to address the program’s looming shortfall. Combining the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) trust funds would extend coverage for another year, ensuring 81% of scheduled benefits through 2034, instead of 2035, as previously estimated.

The trustees also reported that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (Medicare Part A, which covers certain healthcare services) will be able to pay full benefits until 2033, a year earlier than the previous estimate of 2024. At that point, the fund is expected to cover 89% of benefits.

For 2024, the Social Security Administration (SSA) paid $1.47 trillion in benefits to about 68 million beneficiaries, while its administrative costs were just $7.4 billion—representing a very low 0.5% of total expenditures. However, the projected 75-year actuarial deficit is 3.82% of taxable payroll, higher than the 3.50% projected in last year’s report.

Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, stressed that ensuring the financial stability of the trust funds remains a top priority for the Trump Administration. “We must work together—Congress, SSA, and others—to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse to protect and strengthen the trust funds for millions of Americans who rely on it for secure retirement or disability benefits,” he stated.

In responding to the released Trustee’s report, House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Ranking Member John B. Larson (D-CT) criticized the current administration’s approach, calling the Trustees’ Report a wake-up call to enhance Social Security for the first time in more than 50 years. Larson also pushed back against misleading claims from President Trump and Elon Musk about waste and abuse within the system. “Seniors, veterans, and disabled workers rely on these earned benefits, and they’re counting on Congress to do its job,” Larson said. “While Republicans push for privatization, Democrats have a plan to protect and expand Social Security.”

Larson’s Social Security 2100 Act, introduced in the last Congress with 189 cosponsors, aims to strengthen Social Security by expanding benefits and increasing payroll taxes to ensure the program’s long-term solvency.

Media Headlines on Social Security’s “Insolvency” Create Unnecessary Fear

Some media outlets, including The Washington Post, have raised alarms with bold headlines warning that Social Security could become “insolvent by 2033” or even “bankrupt.” In a statement, Bob Weiner, former Chief of Staff to the U.S. House Committee on Aging, rejects these claims, noting that the SSA currently holds a $2.7 trillion surplus. According to Weiner, the Trustees’ warning that the program may cover only 81% of benefits by 2034 is being misinterpreted as insolvency or bankruptcy. “That’s neither bankruptcy nor insolvency. Congress can fix this, perhaps by raising the income cap on Social Security taxes,” Weiner explains.

Weiner points out that, in 2026, the income cap for paying Social Security taxes is set to be $181,800. He also emphasizes that Social Security has faced repeated budget cuts to fund tax breaks for the wealthy. “We must protect Social Security as a priority,” Weiner says. “As Speaker Emerita Pelosi often reminds us, ‘First, do no harm.’”

Aging Groups Give Their Thoughts About Fixing Social Security

In statements, Social Security advocacy groups have also weighed in on and give   comments on the latest Social Security and Medicare Trustee reports.  

Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, argues that the program is fully affordable and costs only about 6% of the GDP at the end of the 21st century. She believes Congress will act to avert the projected shortfall, as it always has in the past. The key question to ask, Altman says, is whether lawmakers will choose to bring in more money through higher taxes or reduce benefits.

Altman strongly opposes cutting benefits, charges that politicians who don’t support increasing Social Security revenue are, by default, advocating for cuts. She highlights the impact of income inequality, which has cost Social Security over $1.4 trillion since 1983. “If the wealthy paid their fair share into the program, we could easily protect and expand Social Security’s modest benefits,” she notes.

While Americans are divided on many issues, Altman points out that there is broad consensus in support of Social Security. “The real crisis facing Social Security is not a future shortfall, but the ongoing sabotage it’s experiencing now,” she says. Altman specifically references the role of Elon Musk’s DOGE, which has pushed out thousands of Social Security staff members, including nearly half of its senior executives, resulting in an irreplaceable loss of institutional knowledge.

Despite these challenges, Altman notes that Social Security is run efficiently, with administrative costs well under a penny for every dollar spent. A major increase or decrease in administrative spending would have minimal impact on the program’s finances.

Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, says this year’s comments on the Trustees’ report, mirrors those he made last year – It’s time to rebuild reserves in the Social Security Trust Fund. However, he warns against harmful proposals such as raising the retirement age or means-testing benefits, both of which would cut benefits for millions of Americans.

“Raising the retirement age to 69 or 70 would significantly reduce lifetime benefits. These ideas have been part of Republican proposals to address the projected shortfall,” Richtman explains.

Richard Fiesta, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, urges aging advocacy groups not to remain complacent. “Republicans in Congress are eager to cut the benefits Americans have worked a lifetime to earn,” he warns. “We cannot allow Social Security to be privatized or dismantled.”

Fiesta also calls for stronger Medicare reform, urging Congress to curb the high cost of prescription drugs and hold Medicare Advantage insurance corporations accountable for rising costs that don’t benefit patients.

A Final Note…

Social Security is an essential lifeline for millions of Americans, and its future is now at a crossroads. Can a partisan Congress work together to find a political viable fix?

While the media reports Social Security’s impending insolvency and bankruptcy, there is no doubt that Congress must act soon to ensure the program’s long-term sustainability. Whether through increasing revenue or reforming benefits, the decision on how to strengthen Social Security will shape the future of retirement and disability benefits for generations to come. It’s time for Congress to act.

View the 2025 Trustees Report at www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2025/.