Since President Donald Trump has returned to the White House, a core focus of his presidency has been to eliminate waste in the federal government, an effort spearheaded by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under the watchful eye of Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Several departments and agencies have been subjected to major funding cuts and mass layoffs. Meanwhile, the Department of Education faces the potential of being dismantled entirely. However, one agency that has been the subject of mixed messages from the Trump Administration is Social Security—a program which sends retirement and disability benefits to over 70 million people through the Social Security Administration (SSA). In the fiscal year of 2024, over 20% of the federal budget was spent on Social Security, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). What Is Happening to Social Security Under the Trump Administration and Should You Be Concerned About Yours? From a messaging standpoint, Trump has maintained that he will not touch Social Security—while some cabinet members have cast doubt on whether or not those who receive Social Security benefits should be concerned. At the same time, reports of planned DOGE-driven cuts and office closures at the agency have led experts to wonder whether the SSA will have the staff required to ensure the checks are counted and delivered on time. On March 26, Democrats held a press briefing that addressed their concerns about planned Social Security cuts, Trump’s new nominee to lead the SSA, and the security of citizens’ information through SSA. “Their goal is clear: destroy Social Security from within. Make it so unworkable, so inefficient, that Donald Trump has the pretext to slash benefits to kill it and then privatize the program,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said at the conference. “Seniors across America are not getting the help they need to get their checks.” Here’s what you need to know about what’s happening to Social Security under the Trump Administration. What has happened to Social Security since Trump returned to the Oval Office? There have been reports that DOGE plans to cut thousands of jobs at the SSA and close offices. The Trump Administration has called for substantial layoffs for SSA employees, with leadership saying it will cut 7,000 of its 57,000 staff. However, on March 27, the SSA stated that claims of office closures are “false.” Elsewhere, there has been concern about the introduction of new identification policies that would require people to come to field offices or access information online instead of utilizing phone calls, something that could alienate older generations or people from rural communities. On March 18, the SSA announced that they would be “implementing stronger identity verification procedures,” procedures that would end verification of identity over the phone Several advocacy groups, including AARP, formerly the American Association for Retired Persons, have come out to request that the SSA “rethink” these requirements. “Requiring rural Americans to go into an office can mean having to take a day off of work and drive for hours merely to fill out paperwork,” AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond said in a statement on March 19. “We urge the agency to reverse this decision, or for Congress to step in and stand up for older Americans everywhere.” Since groups like AARP, in addition to various lawmakers, warned against the alienation that could result from preventing people from being able to verify their identity over the phone, the SSA has walked back certain aspects of these procedures. In an update shared on the SSA website on March 26, the agency announced that some people will be exempt from these new rules, allowing people applying for Medicare, Disability, or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to complete their claim by other means. “We have listened to our customers, Congress, advocates, and others, and we are updating our policy to provide better customer service to the country’s most vulnerable populations,” Lee Dudek, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, said in the update. The changes are set to go into effect on April 14 for all other beneficiaries. Meanwhile, others have been concerned about DOGE’s potential access to the sensitive information held by the SSA. In a ruling in Maryland, one judge ruled to block DOGE from having access to SSA data banks, granting a temporary restraining order. Judge Ellen Hollander determined that “defendants, with so called experts on the DOGE team, never identified or articulated even a single reason for which the DOGE team needs unlimited access to SSA’s entire record systems.” According to the filing, defendants claimed that 10 members of the DOGE team were working at SSA, and that seven of those had access to personally identifiable information contained in the SSA data systems. What has Trump and his cabinet members said about Social Security? The Trump Administration has made it clear they plan to not cut benefits from Social Security. In a “fact check" posted to the White House website on March 11, Trump said that they will “not cut” the program. Still, the Administration said that they believe in cutting wasteful spending within said program. “The Social Security Administration made an estimated $72 billion in improper payments between 2015 and 2022,” the fact sheet stated. “What kind of a person doesn’t support eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending that ultimately costs taxpayers more?” Meanwhile, Musk has been critical of Social Security, notably calling it “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time,” in an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan. “The waste and fraud in entitlement spending” is the “big one to eliminate,” Musk said elsewhere, in an interview with Fox Business Newly-instated Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has also received backlash over his comments about the program, stating that his mother-in-law “wouldn’t call and complain” if Social Security missed a check. “A fraudster always makes the loudest noise,” he continued. The backlash for Lutnick has come from all sides—including his own party as former Republican National Committee (RNC) chair Michael Steele noted on MSNBC that while Lutnick is seemingly in a financial position that allows him to support his family, many families are not as fortunate. “This is the problem when elites base policy on their own experience,” says Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economics at the New School for Social Research, pointing out that for millions of seniors, missing a Social Security check would be an “emergency.” Who is Trump’s nominee to lead the Social Security Administration? Trump’s nominee to be the SSA Commissioner is Frank Bisignano, the CEO of payment processing company Fiserv and a self-proclaimed “DOGE person.” Bisignano was grilled at his confirmation hearing on March 25, where he was asked about proposed changes and cuts by Musk and issues at the agency. Bisignano said he would be an “accountable leader” at SSA, and that he had “no intent” of benefit cuts occurring under his watch. Asked during the hearing whether Social Security should be privatized, Bisignano said “I’ve never heard a word of it, and I’ve never thought about it.” However, experts have expressed concern. Pamela Herd, professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, says she was not convinced that Bisignano’s hearing showed he will keep the SSA out of chaos. “He wouldn't, or didn't really seem to commit to maintaining staffing levels,” says Herd. “Instead, he talked about solutions, like using AI. He spent a lot of time and really emphasized that he wanted to focus on reducing payment errors.” Ghilarducci says that when she first heard that Bisignano was nominated, she was optimistic about the idea of him leading. At the hearing, though, she says he sounded “ideological.” “He respects DOGE, maybe because they are disrupters, and he is going to lift up their role in the Social Security system, which is about demeaning the system and then eroding it, and then building up to what they believe is minimally necessary,” Ghilarducci says. “There [could be] a lot of wreckage, human wreckage along the way.” Should people be concerned about their Social Security? According to Herd, the short answer for whether or not people should be concerned about Social Security is a resounding “yes.” With significant staff cuts, she says it is less a question of whether or not any benefits will actually get cut, but whether the SSA will have the staff to actually “deliver the benefits that the Congress has mandated that they deliver.” “People are waiting for hours to get through on the phone and then getting cut off before they can actually talk to a representative. The field offices, that honestly were already a bit overwhelmed [already], are now completely overwhelmed,” she says. “So there's a real disconnect between the statement, ‘I'm not going to cut benefits,’ and in practice, what is going on in the agency.” Herd states that while DOGE cuts are supposedly, according to Musk, about eliminating waste and fraud, the staffing and procedures that are being cut and changed at the SSA are “needed” to prevent fraud and abuse. “You can't manage 20% of the federal budget on a shoestring. You need actual capacity in that agency, and they've made a series of choices in the last six weeks alone that have significantly undermined capacity of that agency,” Herd says. “People aren't going to be able to pay their bills if the agency can't deliver on the benefits of people with good promise.” Ghilarducci says that in the past few years, Republicans have mostly stayed away from issues of Social Security. With these changes to the SSA and DOGE’s focus on the agency, they’re testing the electorate, she claims. “If they wanted a subject to start a political uprising to the whole Republican agenda… they found it,” Ghilarducci says. “They may have stepp

President Donald Trump on Thursday said he told Apple CEO Tim Cook that he doesn’t want the tech giant to build its products in India, taking shots at the company’s moves to diversify production away from China and urging him to pivot stateside. “I had a little problem with Tim Cook yesterday,” Trump said. “I said to him, ‘Tim, you’re my friend, I’ve treated you very good. You’re coming here with $500 billion, but now I hear you’re building all over India. I don’t want you building in India.’” Trump was referencing Apple’s commitment of a $500 billion investment in the U.S. which was announced in February. Apple has been ramping up production in India with the aim of making around 25% of global iPhones in the country in the next few years, as it looks to reduce reliance on China, where around 90% of its flagship smartphone is currently assembled. “I said to Tim, I said, ‘Tim, look, we’ve treated you really good, we’ve put up with all the plants that you built in China for years, now you’ve got to build us. We’re not interested in you building in India, India can take care of themselves ... we want you to build here,’” Trump said. The U.S. president added that Apple is going to be “upping” its production in the United States, without disclosing further details. CNBC has reached out to Apple for comment. Trump made the comments about the U.S. tech giant while discussing Washington’s broader trade relations with India. Trump said India is “one of the highest tariff nations in the world,” adding the country has offered a deal to the U.S. where “they’re willing to literally charge us no tariff.” Trump was referencing Apple’s commitment of a $500 billion investment in the U.S. which was announced in February. Apple has been ramping up production in India with the aim of making around 25% of global iPhones in the country in the next few years, as it looks to reduce reliance on China, where around 90% of its flagship smartphone is currently assembled. “I said to Tim, I said, ‘Tim, look, we’ve treated you really good, we’ve put up with all the plants that you built in China for years, now you’ve got to build us. We’re not interested in you building in India, India can take care of themselves ... we want you to build here,’” Trump said. The U.S. president added that Apple is going to be “upping” its production in the United States, without disclosing further details. CNBC has reached out to Apple for comment. Trump made the comments about the U.S. tech giant while discussing Washington’s broader trade relations with India. Trump said India is “one of the highest tariff nations in the world,” adding the country has offered a deal to the U.S. where “they’re willing to literally charge us no tariff.” Under the White House’s trade protectionist policies revealed in April, Trump has imposed a so-called reciprocal tariff of 26% on Indian goods, which has been temporarily lowered until July. Apple’s main assembly partner in India, Foxconn, received approval from the Indian government on Monday to build a semiconductor plant in the country in a joint venture with HCL Group. Apple has spent decades building up its supply chain in China, but has looked to other countries like Vietnam and India to expand its production capacity. Experts generally agree that moving production of the iPhone to the U.S. would be highly unlikely because of the final price of the end product. Varying estimates put the cost of an iPhone between $1,500 to $3,500, if it were made in the U.S. Apple currently makes very few products in the U.S. The Cupertino, California, giant produces the Mac Pro in the U.S. In February, it announced it would launch a manufacturing facility in Texas to produce servers for Apple Intelligence, its artificial intelligence system.

The revelation that top Trump Administration officials used an encrypted messaging app to discuss sensitive military operations set off an escalating battle in the Capitol on Tuesday, as lawmakers suggested significant national security protocols may have been breached and pushed for further investigation. Lawmakers from both parties are now calling for the full exchange to be released after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe testified on Tuesday that no classified information was shared in the Signal group chat, which had mistakenly included a journalist. The Signal chat, which reportedly included Vice President J.D. Vance, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, has raised concerns that the Trump Administration is not taking the security of sensitive national security deliberations seriously enough. The chat came to public attention after The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed on Monday that he had been accidentally included in the discussion. In his article, Goldberg quoted discussions in the chat about an active military operation, but omitted information he described as relating to weapons packages, strike timing, and target details for an active military operation—the March 15 U.S. air assault on Yemen’s Houthi militants. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, tells TIME that Goldberg should release the messages in their entirety in light of what Trump officials testified to at Tuesday’s hearing. “Yes, especially since they said there’s nothing classified, which is absurd on its face, because you have disputes between senior policy leaders about a potential military attack,” Warner says. “The CIA would give an arm and a leg to get that on China and Russia… Trump officials are saying ‘There’s no problem here.’ Well, let’s see.” The White House has downplayed the controversy, with President Trump himself claiming there “was no classified information” shared on the Signal chain. Republican lawmakers have largely aligned with the Administration’s stance, viewing the concerns as politically motivated attacks. Still, some Republicans expressed unease after Tuesday’s hearing, and said they hoped to see more information. “Well, I think we need to find out what the facts are,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, tells TIME. “The Intel committee will look and see if it meets the definition of classified information.” Pressed on whether resignations should be expected if the messages did meet the definition of classified information, he hedged: “I don’t know. We’ll find out.” Others were even more reluctant to discuss anyone involved in the chat facing any consequences. Sen. Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas and chair of the Senate Intelligence panel, refused to comment when asked by TIME if National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth should be fired if classified material was sent over the unsecured platform—a possible violation of federal law. Sen. James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma who is on the Intelligence Committee, outright rejected the idea of calling for resignations even if the messages contained classified information. “No, I would say, first off, way ahead of knowing what was actually there,” Lankford told TIME on Tuesday. “Second, this is an internal conversation among the White House team, and many of those folks are people that work directly for the President at his pleasure. So they don't work for me. They work for the President.” Lankford also dismissed calls for Goldberg to publish the full text of the messages, saying, “No, I think that he should use his best judgment on that.” Asked whether releasing the messages would help with fact-finding, he responded, “I have no idea, honestly, because internal conversations are internal conversations.” During Tuesday’s hearing, Gabbard and Ratcliffe repeatedly insisted that the group chat did not contain classified information. But under scrutiny from Democratic Senators, their answers became increasingly nuanced. While Gabbard initially deflected about her participation in the chain, she later said that no information under the direct purview of the intelligence community was discussed. Ratcliffe also attempted to shift responsibility, arguing that it was up to the Department of Defense to determine classification standards and that “Signal is a permissible work-use application” for the CIA. Signal is often recommended for use by privacy advocates because of its encrypted messaging, but it is generally not considered secure enough for national security issues. Goldberg reported that some of the messages in the Signal group were set to disappear after one week, and some after four. Democrats found the responses from Trump officials unsatisfactory. Sen. Angus King, independent of Maine, pressed Gabbard on what would have happened if details about military targets and strike sequencing had been made public the morning before the attack in Yemen took place. She declined to answer directly, saying she would defer to the National Security Council and the Pentagon on whether targeting information should have been classified. “You’re the head of the intelligence community,” King said. “You’re supposed to know about classifications.” The broader political implications of the controversy are also coming into focus. For years, Republicans have fiercely criticized past administrations for alleged mishandling of classified materials. “I would imagine if you looked at what those Senators had to say about Hillary's emails, you’d see a pretty striking contrast,” Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, told TIME, referring to the years of unrelenting attacks from Republicans over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server while in the Obama Administration. Despite these calls for accountability, Republican leaders have shown little appetite for aggressive oversight. Not one Republican Senator on the Intelligence Committee asked Gabbard or Ratcliffe about the chat scandal during Tuesday’s open hearing. Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker, a Republican of Mississippi, confirmed to CNN that his committee would look into the matter but provided little details. “If we can't unite around national security, if we can't unite about this kind of careless behavior…” Warner told TIME, “I think there will be concerns [from Republicans] but they’ve got to be moved from private concerns to public concerns.” Goldberg remains at the center of the storm, as Warner and other Democrats call on him to release more of the conversation he was inadvertently let in on. Doing so could provide clarity on whether the chat was the reckless breach of national security protocols critics argue it was. At the Senate hearing on Tuesday, FBI Director Kash Patel refused to say that Goldberg would not be held legally liable if he decided to publish the full messages. “I'm not going to prejudge the situation, and that legal call is ultimately for the Department of Justice,” he said.