Tag Archives for President Donald Trump

Seeing Echoes of 1938 in Trump Administration

Published in Providence Journal on Oct. 18, 2025

As the nation-wide “No Kings” protest looms, I write with urgency and deep concern about the growing threats to America’s democratic institutions. At this point, expressions of worry are not enough to stop our 259-year-old democratic republic from drifting toward authoritarian rule. We see attacks on voting rights, efforts to weaken the independence of the courts, court rulings being ignored, and attempts to discredit the press—warning signs that cannot be brushed aside. Finally, we will see bold, visible action take place on Oct. 18th, with protests taking place in over 1,650 communities across all the United States, the District of Columbia and International. 

It was reported that the previous “No Kings” protest in June attracted about 5 million participants. Some say that this number could double, mobilizing up to 10 million people to participate. Elected officials – at local state and federal levels should join the protest in their local communities.

During an 80-minute press event in the Oval Office to announce the federal government’s tighter control of law enforcement inside the Beltway, President Donald Trump startled many Americans with a comment suggesting that perhaps the country might “like a dictator” in the White House. He quickly added that he was not a dictator, but rather a man of “great common sense.” 

Despite Trumps denials, his actions and the tone of his speeches and social media posts stroke division in ways that resemble the stages of the Nazi’s autocratic takeover of Germany.  It’s hard to believe his denials with his behavior of undermining democratic institutions that he claims to defend.

Still, the idiom “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” comes to mind. Americans should be forewarned.

Trumps sending the National Guard into Democratic cities, without the consent of state governors, who oppose his policies, clearly is a sign of autocratic behavior.  Governors and federal and state lawmakers in these states call these actions political over reach and the weaponization of the Justice Department.

History reminds us of the danger of hesitation. In the late 1930s, as the Nazi regime consolidated power, by taking control of the Reichstag (the German parliament) and enacting legislation that significantly undermined democratic processes.  

At that time too many German leaders just stood by.  Their silence fueled violence and oppression and allowed it to grow unchecked. That tragic failure shows the cost of waiting until it is too late.

Does this not sound familiar today?

I often wonder what I would have done during Kristallnacht—the “Night of Broken Glass” in November 1938—when mobs attacked Jewish homes, synagogues, and businesses even desecrating cemeteries. Would I have stepped forward to protect my neighbor or even attempt to stop the destruction? The horror of that night was enabled not only by the Brown Shirts or SA (Sturmagteilung), SS (Schutzstaffel), local police, and ordinary German citizens who carried out the rampage but also by the many who just looked away in the face of destruction.

Today we see disturbing echoes: immigrants packed into detention centers, families torn apart, and even U.S. citizens taken by masked ICE agents without warrants. These actions weaken our nation’s constitutional protections and send a chilling message that no one’s rights are secure. Such practices do not belong in a free society and push us closer to authoritarian control.

Eighty years later, I have the opportunity to raise my voice, to sound the alarm, to draw the similarities between then and now. The responsibility to resist does not rest solely on the shoulders of elected officials, but also with citizens who can no longer remain silent. This is our time to defend our constitutional democracy with courage and clarity. Future generations will remember whether we stood firm—or stood by and watched.

 Albert Einstein so aptly observed: “The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.”

The millions of Americans participating in the “No Kings” protest have united to resist authoritarianism and defend our democracy. Will you join this movement, or will you remain silent.

Social Security is in Crisis: We Must Resist Efforts to Change It

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on August 19, 2025

Security will mark its 90th anniversary. On that date in 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the landmark program into law as a safeguard against the “hazards and vicissitudes” of life.

“For a federal program to endure for 90 years and maintain an extremely high level of popularity among the American people is truly extraordinary,” says the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM). “It is an achievement that should be celebrated far and wide.”

Yet this milestone comes amid growing political controversy that could shape the program’s future.

Privatization Concerns Emerge

Just 15 days before the anniversary, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made remarks that sent shockwaves through the aging advocacy community. Speaking at a Breitbart News–sponsored event, Bessent described President Trump’s newly enacted “Trump accounts” (also referred to as “Child Savings Accounts” or “Child IRAs”) as potentially serving as a “backdoor for privatizing Social Security.” His comments, made during a Breitbart policy panel on the evening of July 30, were quickly picked up by national media outlets.

Bessent elaborated: “If these accounts grow and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, that’s a game-changer too.” He suggested that the success and expansion of these individual retirement accounts—created under President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act—could eventually reduce Americans’ reliance on traditional Social Security benefits.

The law, signed by Trump on July 4, creates a new tax-deferred investment account for children under the age of 18, born in the U.S. between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028. These accounts are seeded with $1,000 in federal funds and allow additional contributions of up to $5,000 annually from parents, family members, or employers. Structured similarly to IRAs, the funds must be invested in low-cost mutual funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that track a U.S. stock index.

Max Richtman, NCPSSM President and CEO, quickly issued a public response, calling on Trump to denounce Bessent’s suggestion of a “backdoor” to privatization. “President George W. Bush tried it after his re-election in 2004—and failed miserably. The American people didn’t buy it then, and they won’t buy it now,” Richtman said.

He urged the former president to issue a clear and unequivocal statement: “Make a clear, unequivocal statement (as only you can) that your administration will not try to privatize Social Security.”

John Hishta, Senior Vice President of Campaigns at AARP, also issued a statement and condemned Bessent’s comments. “We have fought any and all efforts to privatize Social Security, and we will continue to,” he said. “President Trump has emphasized many times that Social Security ‘won’t be touched,’ and that he is ‘not going to touch Social Security.’ This must include any and all forms of privatization.”

“Privatization is a terrible idea”, says Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works in a statement, noting that unlike private savings, Social Security is a guaranteed earned benefit that you can’t outlive. “It has stood strong through wars, recessions, and pandemics. The American people have a message for Trump and Bessent: Keep Wall Street’s hands off our Social Security!,” she says.

Following the backlash, Bessent attempted to clarify his remarks in a post on X (formerly Twitter) the next day: “Trump Baby Accounts are an additive benefit for future generations, which will supplement the sanctity of Social Security’s guaranteed payments. This is not an either-or question. Our administration is committed to protecting Social Security and making sure seniors have more money.”

During her Thursday press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that President Trump remains “wholeheartedly committed” to protecting Social Security—even as Bessent’s earlier comments appeared to contradict that position. “What the Secretary of the Treasury was saying—and what this administration believes—is that these Trump newborn accounts, which are an incredibly creative and positive provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill, are meant to help supplement, not substitute, Social Security,” Leavitt told reporters.

Democrats and Advocacy Groups Push Back

Last Thursday, amid hundreds of events scheduled this month throughout the nation to celebrate SSA’s 90th anniversary, the Washington, D.C.–based Social Security Works hosted a press conference to warn against what they called Trump administration efforts to undermine and dismantle Social Security.

Moderator Nancy Altman, President of SSW, opened the Town Hall by emphasizing the importance of celebrating Social Security’s milestone anniversary and the need to protect and defend the program. Throughout the event, Altman introduced each speaker, describing them as champions dedicated to safeguarding Social Security.

Speakers cited administrative actions such as firing 7,000 employees, closing field offices, and creating a customer service crisis. During the 37-minute press event, prominent Democrats and leaders of progressive advocacy groups argued these steps were part of a deliberate strategy to erode public confidence and justify future benefit cuts or privatization.

They contrasted these actions with proposals to expand benefits and extend the program’s solvency by lifting the cap on taxable income. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont), described as a leading champion of earned benefits and author of the Social Security Expansion Act, called Social Security “the most successful federal government program of all time.” This was said to counter claims by critics, like Elon Musk, who have called it a “Ponzi scheme.” Sanders added: “This is a huge fight. We have the American people behind us. Let’s win it.”

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee and a key figure in the Senate’s “Social Security War Room,” said: “Trump’s so-called promise to protect Social Security, in my view, is about as real as his promise to protect Medicaid—no substance.”

Rep. John Larson (D-Connecticut), Ranking Member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, urged Congress to expand benefits. He noted that the last major expansion was under President Nixon and that millions of seniors still live in or near poverty.

Former Social Security Commissioner under President Biden, Martin O’Malley, charged, “They’re trying to wreck its customer service so they can turn enough Americans against it—and ultimately get away with robbing it.” He described this as the strategic motivation behind what he called the Trump administration’s dismantling of the SSA’s operational capacity.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan), who helped organize the Expand Social Security Caucus and has deep family ties to the creation of both Social Security and Medicare, declared: “I’ll be damned if anybody’s going to take us back to those days,” recalling the poverty and desperation seniors faced before the program’s enactment.

Judith Brown, a Social Security beneficiary, gave personal testimony underscoring the critical role her monthly check plays in her financial survival.

Keisha Bras, Director of Opportunity, Race, and Justice for the NAACP; Molly Weston Williamson, a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund and an expert on paid leave; and Sarah Francis of Unrig Our Economy rounded out the panel.

A Legacy Under Threat

NCPSSM President Max Richtman warns that while the anniversary is cause for celebration, “we must always defend the program from those who would privatize or outright eliminate it. These forces have been at work ever since Social Security was enacted.”

To educate the public and counter misinformation, NCPSSM has produced a new documentary, Social Security: 90 Years Strong, with funding from AARP. The film tells the story of the program’s creation during the Great Depression and its enduring role for seniors, people with disabilities, and their families.

The documentary features interviews with Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley, Nancy Altman (Social Security Works), Bill Arnone (formerly of the National Academy of Social Insurance), FDR’s grandson Jim Roosevelt, Tracey Gronniger (Justice in Aging), Kathryn Edwards (Labor Economist), and Giovanna Gray Lockhart (former Director, Frances Perkins Center).

Social Security is often called the “third rail” of American politics—a metaphor drawn from the high-voltage rail powering some trains, where contact can be fatal. In politics, “stepping on the third rail” can mean political death.

“More than 69 million Americans rely on Social Security today and as America ages, we expect at least 13 million more people to rely on it by 2035.” said Myechia Minter-Jordan, Chief Executive Officer at AARP in s July 21 statement announcing the results of a new SSA survey. “For 90 years, Social Security has never missed a payment, and Americans should have confidence that it never will,” she said. 

The survey findings indicate that nearly two in three (65%) retired Americans say they rely substantially on Social Security, while another 21 percent say they rely on it somewhat. In 2020, 63% of retired Americans said they relied substantially on Social Security, jumping from 58% in both 2015 and 2010.

Social Security has strong bipartisan support, too.  The survey found that that more than two-thirds of Americans (67%) believe Social Security is more important to retirees today than it was five years ago. Overall, 96% consider the program important, with broad bipartisan agreement: 98% of Democrats, 95% of Republicans, and 93% of Independents.

The Social Security Trustees’ 2025 annual report, released in June, projects the program’s trust funds will run short of money by 2034. Without action, beneficiaries could face an estimated 19% cut in monthly payments.

Whether lawmakers who support privatization —while keeping their voter base—if they “step on the third rail” by raising the full retirement age or refusing to raise taxes remains to be seen.

We’ll see.

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