Business
Column: An exhaustive debunking of the dumbest myths about Social Security
Myths and canards about Social Security and its supposed fiscal troubles have steadily proliferated over the years. But it’s rare to find them all concentrated in one place as they were in a recent article on the online news site Slate.
Slate paired Eric Boehm, a writer for the conservative magazine Reason, with a writer named Celeste Headlee for a dialogue titled “Social Security Doesn’t Make Sense Anymore.” The roughly 2,000-word piece contained so many misconceptions, inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and flat-out lies about the program that I almost gave up counting. That said, it’s perhaps worthwhile to have a one-stop shop for all these solecisms, if only for the purpose of debunking them en masse.
Most people 65 and older receive the majority of their income from Social Security.
— Kathleen Romig tells the truth about Social Security that Slate missed
The article called for a “radical rethink” of Social Security to make it somehow more relevant to Americans in the modern world. Boehm and Headlee evidently think that’s a world in which America is on the brink of insolvency and can’t afford to spend another dime on the disadvantaged, that Social Security recipients are rich, and that older Americans can have their pick of jobs that will keep them happy and healthy indefinitely.
Slate says their dialogue was “edited for clarity,” but the only thing it made clear is that neither of them knows the first thing about Social Security. More alarming, they showed no inclination to learn.
There isn’t space here or time for me to list every solecism in the piece, so I will focus on some of the most egregious errors.
—“People who are young and working … are funding the retirement of generally wealthier Americans.” This notion was popularized by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), who went around calling Social Security beneficiaries “greedy geezers” and disdained the program as “a milk cow with 310 million tits.”
The underlying idea is that the average Social Security beneficiaries are doing better than the poor souls in the working class who are paying for their lives of leisure through their payroll taxes. It’s commonly reported that retirees are, on average, the wealthiest cohort of Americans.
Here’s what’s wrong with that idea: The reason that so many seniors are able to live comfortably is because they receive Social Security.
As Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has reported, “most people 65 and older receive the majority of their income from Social Security.” The poverty rate among Americans older than 65 is 10.3%. Without Social Security, it would be nearly 38%. To put it another way, Social Security keeps more than 15 million seniors out of poverty.
The average Social Security monthly check is $1,709.70, which works out to $20,516 a year. That’s about $800 more than the federal poverty line for a family of two.
The idea that cutting off the wealthiest seniors or at least reducing their benefits would help save Social Security is a popular myth, with recipients like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates the most common illustrative targets. The goal is to promote “means-testing” the program.
But myth it is. As of 2017, about 47,500 millionaires were receiving Social Security. Their total benefits came to about $1.4 billion, or about 15 hundredths of a percent of the $941 billion in benefits the system paid out that year. If you’re intent on “saving” Social Security by means-testing, you would need to start cutting off or reducing benefits for recipients earning about $70,000 a year in non-Social Security income — not millionaires.
Boehm backed up his thoughts on this topic with some suspect data. He cites the Federal Reserve in asserting that “the average value of a retired person’s assets” today is $538,000. Hmm. My reading of the Fed’s latest digest from its Survey of Consumer Finances, issued just last month, places the median net worth of those aged 65-74 at about $410,000; for those 75 and older, it’s $335,600.
Does that make them rich? Using the common rule of thumb that one can spend 4% a year of retirement savings to have the best chance of not outliving your nest egg, $410,000 produces $16,400 a year. Not the basis of a lavish lifestyle. Even a nest egg of $538,000 doesn’t make for a life of leisure — in one’s first year of retirement the 4% rule would yield $21,520.
—Just raise the retirement age? Boehm: “When Social Security began, you could get benefits at age 65, but the average life expectancy in this country was like 61. So the average person actually died before they qualified for Social Security.” This is another quacking canard from the Simpson duck pond.
Average life expectancy from birth in 1940, when the first Social Security checks went out, was about 63 and a half, which I suppose is “like” 61. But that figure was skewed lower by high infant mortality; Boehm acknowledges this, but doesn’t bother to explore its ramifications, perhaps because it explodes his take.
For Americans who made it to their first birthday back then, average life expectancy was nearly 66. For those entering their working careers, say at age 20—the relevant cohort for assessing the chances of collecting Social Security — it was nearly 69.
In other words, the average person did not actually die before qualifying for Social Security; the average person collected for years. Indeed, those who were 65 in the late 1930s lived on average nearly to 78.
Anyway, life expectancy is closely connected to race, educational attainment and income. Those who live longest are whites, college graduates and the affluent. Raising the retirement age is a curse on those who don’t fall into those categories. White people aged 65 have gained more than six years of longevity since the 1930s; Black males only about four years.
By the way, what are workers supposed to do while they’re waiting longer to reach retirement age? Leaving aside the impact of age discrimination that makes it harder for older people to obtain or keep jobs, the Census Bureau has reported that more than half of all workers aged 58 or older were in physically demanding jobs or jobs with difficult working conditions — more than 13 million workers.
As economists Cherrie Bucknor and Dean Baker pointed out in a 2016 paper, “the workers who were most likely to be in these jobs were Latinos, the least educated (less than a high school diploma), immigrants, and the lowest wage earners.”
I don’t know what Boehm’s working conditions are like, but I’d bet they don’t “require dynamic, explosive, static, or trunk strength, bending or twisting of the body, stamina, maintaining balance, or kneeling or crouching” or involve “exposure to abnormal temperatures, contaminants, hazardous equipment, whole body vibration, or distracting or uncomfortable noise.” It’s easy to think that everyone else should work harder, if your frame of reference is your own office desk.
—Social Security is “a welfare program”: Boehm pushed this idea hard. “You would never build a welfare program, you would never get Congress to approve the construction of a new welfare program, that took money directly from the paychecks of workers and transferred it to a wealthy cohort somewhere in this country,” he says.
There’s a manifest danger in calling Social Security a welfare program. That’s because welfare programs are easiest to axe when conservatives go hunting for budget cuts — Americans typically view them as serving layabouts and malingerers at their expense.
Social Security is nothing like a welfare program, however. It’s a contributory system, funded entirely by its beneficiaries through the payroll tax. Its benefits are tied to lifetime contributions. That’s why billionaires get it, too — they contributed to it during their working lives. Nor is it only an old-age pension: It encompasses disability benefits and insurance to cover spouses and children when their breadwinner suffers an untimely death.
Before Republicans started casting “entitlements” as a dirty word, Americans saw their entitlement to Social Security benefits as a blessing — most still do. They’re entitled to it because they’ve paid for it with every paycheck.
The idea that the system represents a war between seniors and younger generations is just wrong. Whatever fiscal problems face Social Security, it’s because it’s exploited by the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
In 1937, when the payroll tax was first collected, it applied to about 92% of all earned income. By 2020, that figure had fallen to 83%, largely because of an increase in income inequality. Were the payroll tax to be restructured to cover 90% of earnings, as the Congressional Budget Office reported last year, that would produce an additional $670 billion in revenue over 10 years; raise it to cover all annual earnings over $250,000, the gain would be $1.2 trillion — all without cutting benefits by even a penny.
—Social Security “is going to hit a brick wall in the 2030s.” This is Boehm’s gloss on the familiar projection that the program’s trust fund will run out some time in the middle of that decade. Is that a “brick wall”? Hardly: At that point, the program will still be guaranteed enough revenues to continue paying three-quarters of all scheduled benefits.
That’s a middle-of-the-road estimate. The system’s actuaries have also projected that given alternative demographic and economic assumptions — including assuming the unemployment rate and economy stay where they are today and immigration rises closer to its historical norm, the program might even be able to pay all benefits indefinitely.
—”The cost of Social Security is … ballooning quite rapidly”: This holds no water at all. The CBO projects that Social Security benefits as a share of gross domestic product, currently 5.1%, will rise to 6.2% by 2053. If that’s a balloon, it’s inflating pretty slowly.
In that time span, incidentally, GDP will more than triple to $79.5 trillion from $26.2 trillion, according to the CBO.
Boehm’s argument is that Social Security is becoming such a fiscal burden that it’s “killing the safety net.” He says, “There’s not enough money to go around,” which is absurd to say about the richest nation in world history. He says the cost of Social Security and Medicare, which he seems to think, erroneously, are related programs, is “pushing other things to the budget into a territory where we have to borrow more money to pay for them.”
That’s obviously not so. We wouldn’t have to borrow if we took such reasonable steps as repealing the 2017 tax cuts for corporations and the rich that drove a hole into the federal budget, or started charging the wealthy for their fair share of Social Security. He mentions that Americans have experienced “decades of greater prosperity,” but not that the benefits of that prosperity have been collected overwhelmingly by the 1%.
Boehm and Headlee plainly intended to tell it like it is on Social Security. Unfortunately, their effort was hampered by lack of information. Would it have killed them to do even a little research?
Dear Liz: I have a retirement account at work and a stock portfolio. Both are down significantly this year and I’m tired of losing money. What are the safest options now?
Answer: Before the “what” you need to think about the “why” and the “when.” Why are you investing in the first place? And when will you need this money?
If you’re investing for retirement, you may not need the money for years or decades. Even when you’re retired, you’ll likely need to keep a portion of your money in stocks if you want to keep ahead of inflation. The price for that inflation-beating power is suffering through occasional downturns.
You won’t suffer those downturns in “safer” investments such as U.S. Treasuries or FDIC-insured savings accounts, but you also won’t achieve the growth you likely need to meet your retirement goals. In fact, you may be losing money after inflation and taxes are factored in.
Also keep in mind that if you sell during downturns, you’ve locked in your losses. Any money that’s not invested won’t be able to participate in the inevitable rebounds after downturns. Plus, you may be generating a tax bill, since a stock that’s down for the year may still be worth more than when you bought it. (You don’t have to worry about taxes with most retirement accounts until you withdraw the money, but selling stocks in other accounts can generate capital gains.)
The exception to all this is if you have money in stocks that you’re likely to need within five years. If that’s the case, the money should be moved to investments that preserve principal so the cash will be there when you need it.
Dear Liz: I am a retired special education teacher who receives a government pension. The recent law change now permits me to also receive Social Security. I have 38 of the 40 credits required in order to qualify. Am I better off getting a job to earn those two credits? Another teacher explained to me that I can be paid 50% of my husband’s Social Security benefit instead. That would likely be greater than my own Social Security benefit. We would both wait until we are 70 to collect Social Security.
Answer: The Social Security Fairness Act did away with the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset, two rules that reduced Social Security benefits for people receiving pensions from jobs that didn’t pay into Social Security.
As you’ve noted, to qualify for your own benefit you would need 40 quarterly credits or 10 years of work history at jobs that paid into Social Security. If your credits were earned decades ago at low-paying jobs, then your spousal benefit might well be larger than your own retirement benefit.
Your spousal benefit can be up to 50% of your husband’s benefit at his full retirement age. Spousal benefits are reduced if you start before your own full retirement age, which is presumably 67, but won’t be increased if you wait beyond that age. Your husband must be receiving his own benefit before you can get a spousal benefit.
The rules can be complex so you’ll want to educate yourself thoroughly and consider consulting a financial planner to figure out the best claiming strategy.
Dear Liz: My husband passed away in January 2024. He retired from the U.S. Postal Service after 37 years. He drew off of my Social Security since he did not pay in. How will the change in the windfall elimination provision affect me?
Answer: It may not.
Social Security has promised to increase benefits and make retroactive payments to people affected by the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset. The retroactive payments reflect the increase in their payment amount dating back to January 2024, when the two provisions stopped applying. Social Security is mailing notices to people who will be affected, and most will see the benefit increases starting this month.
Technically, you weren’t affected by either provision, since they applied to people receiving pensions that didn’t pay into Social Security, not their spouses. Your husband’s Social Security spousal benefit likely was reduced because of the government pension offset.
Since your husband died the month that the two provisions stopped applying, the amount Social Security may owe him retroactively is likely small, if anything. If you don’t get a notice or see a payment, you can call Social Security to inquire, but the agency says most affected beneficiaries will get their adjustments automatically.
You can learn more about the Social Security Fairness Act here: https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/social-security-fairness-act.html.
Liz Weston, Certified Financial Planner®, is a personal finance columnist. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon, No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the “Contact” form at asklizweston.com.
President Trump’s new tariffs on more than 100 countries used the same simple formula to calculate the rate for each of them.
The formula’s central value is the trade deficit, the difference between imports and exports between each country and the United States, for the year 2024.
The slightly more detailed math looks like this:
Mr. Trump has said these tariffs will reduce trade imbalances and level the international playing field.
But his one-size-fits-all formula is blunt: It applies the exact same math to countries whether they have hefty trade barriers or wide-open markets. It considers only the size of a trade deficit, not why the deficit exists.
And it has some key choices hidden within it. Change any one of those choices, and the resulting tariffs would look very different.
Here, we take you through these variables so you can see how different choices might yield big changes for the countries that trade with the United States.
Goods and services
The Trump administration calculated the trade deficit using only goods — physical items that can be shipped — and not services, such as technology, media, banking and tourism. (A DVD counts; a Netflix subscription doesn’t.)
That’s great news for Bermuda, the archipelago nation that exports few goods but plenty of financial services to the United States (thanks to its favorable tax laws, American companies like to bank there). Under the current rules, it pays a 10 percent tariff. If its service dollars were counted, it would pay 37 percent.
But it’s bad news for most of America’s other trading partners. The United States imports more goods from the European Union than it sends. But it exports more services than it buys. If you counted services in the trade gap in Mr. Trump’s formula, the tariffs on the E.U. would shrink almost in half.
Many countries are in the same boat as the European Union, because the United States is the world’s largest exporter of services. Switzerland, in particular, would see its tariffs drop quite a bit if services were taken into account. It exports plenty of pharmaceuticals and watches to America, but if you count all the services it imports from America, its trade deficit shrinks significantly.
How tariffs would change if the deficit included goods and services
| country | current rate | new rate | change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bermuda | 10% | 37% | +27 pts. |
| Costa Rica | 10% | 15% | +5 pts. |
| Philippines | 17% | 20% | +3 pts. |
| South Africa | 30% | 22% | -8 pts. |
| India | 26% | 18% | -8 pts. |
| European Union | 20% | 10% | -10 pts. |
| Brunei | 24% | 14% | -10 pts. |
| Switzerland | 31% | 10% | -21 pts. |
The Trump administration has emphasized goods because it blames large goods deficits for a decline in manufacturing jobs. But many economists argue that ignoring services leaves out a key area of trade.
Yearly variation
The Trump administration used 2024 data to calculate the tariff rate, but trade deficits can vary year to year.
Consider this: In 2024, the United States exported more to Saudi Arabia than it imported, but the opposite was true in 2023. Bolivia was the reverse — the United States had a trade deficit with Bolivia in 2024 but a surplus in 2023.
Picking the most recent year might not really capture whether a country has significant trade barriers. It might, instead, be telling us something about the state of a country or the world’s economy at that moment.
If the administration had smoothed out any oddities by using the average trade deficit over the last five years, tariffs on large countries wouldn’t change much. China’s tariffs would rise by one percentage point; the European Union’s would shift by even less.
But for some countries, a different time frame could have meaningfully changed the calculated values — not necessarily to their benefit.
For example: The United States had a tiny trade deficit with Equatorial Guinea in 2024, so the African country is getting a much better deal than it would have in previous years, when the deficit was several times higher. Brunei, on the other hand, has sold more to the U.S. than it has bought the last couple of years. Look back a little further, and it would’ve benefited from the years it spent as a net buyer of American goods.
How tariffs would change if the deficit were based on a 2020 to 2024 average
| country | current rate | new rate | change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equatorial Guinea | 13% | 30% | +17 pts. |
| Kosovo | 10% | 27% | +17 pts. |
| Ghana | 10% | 21% | +11 pts. |
| Malaysia | 24% | 32% | +8 pts. |
| Moldova | 31% | 23% | -8 pts. |
| Tunisia | 28% | 19% | -9 pts. |
| Namibia | 21% | 10% | -11 pts. |
| Brunei | 24% | 10% | -14 pts. |
The new tariffs will very likely cause changes in trading patterns, meaning even more year-to-year variation than before. If the administration decides to keep the formula intact for years, it may need to update the trade deficit values regularly.
The 10 percent floor
The Trump administration set a 10 percent minimum tariff for every country. At least 100 countries and territories that buy more from the United States than they sell — which seems to be what Mr. Trump wants — were still given the 10 percent tariff.
The United States has a large trade surplus with Australia — it exports more than twice as much to Australia as what it buys — indicating the kind of trade relationship Mr. Trump is seeking. And yet Australia will be charged the same 10 percent tariff rate as New Zealand, with which the United States has a calculated 20 percent trade deficit. (If anything, Australia would impose a steep tariff on U.S. goods if it followed Mr. Trump’s system.)
If the administration had not imposed a 10 percent minimum, the tariffs on some of America’s major trading partners might look like this:
How tariffs would change if there were no floor
| country | current rate | new rate | change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | 10% | 0% | -10 pts. |
| Brazil | 10% | 0% | -10 pts. |
| Chile | 10% | 0% | -10 pts. |
| Colombia | 10% | 0% | -10 pts. |
| Saudi Arabia | 10% | 0% | -10 pts. |
| Singapore | 10% | 0% | -10 pts. |
| Britain | 10% | 0% | -10 pts. |
| United Arab Emirates | 10% | 0% | -10 pts. |
Everything else
Using the current Trump formula as a starting point, there are many arbitrary choices that would result in different tariffs and a different world economy. We played out every iteration of our choices from above, to see what tariffs might look like under different decisions.
Here are the countries with the widest ranges of possible tariff rates, based on those scenarios.
Changes to the formula would lead to big changes for some countries
These ranges include eight possible scenarios, based on three decision points: including versus excluding services; using 2024 data versus 2020-24 data; a 10 percent floor versus no floor.
| country | |
|---|---|
| Bermuda | |
| Kosovo | |
| Brunei | |
| Switzerland | |
| Equatorial Guinea | |
| Monaco | |
| Mozambique | |
| Venezuela | |
| Nigeria | |
| Kenya |
Beyond that, the Trump administration made several other arbitrary choices in its formula.
The biggest is that the formula divides the result by two. Mr. Trump said this was chosen to be “kind,” essentially halving the calculated tariff rates. Of course, he could have chosen to divide by three or four to be more kind or not divide at all to be less kind.
The full formula also multiplies the tariff rate by two other variables that we didn’t show above, meant to approximate the “price elasticity of import demand” and the “tariff pass-through to retail prices.” But the numbers the administration chose for those variables are 4 and 0.25, which cancel out (4 × 0.25 = 1) and have no effect on the final rate.
The tariff for Afghanistan is set at 10 percent, though the formula would have resulted in a 25 percent fee. The administration has not explained why Afghanistan is the sole country with different math.
A handful of countries were excluded from the new tariffs, including Canada and Mexico, which face separate tariff negotiations with Mr. Trump, and Russia and North Korea, which have other sanctions already placed on them. For China, on the other hand, the new tariffs are in addition to existing tariffs already in place, bringing China’s total tariff rate to at least 54 percent.
Exceptions on certain products also create some quirks. The United States will charge a 39 percent tariff on all goods from Iraq, largely because Iraq exports a lot of oil. However, oil and gas imports have been excluded from tariffs. This means that products like textiles or dates imported from Iraq will be charged a large tariff because of Iraq’s oil exports, even though the oil exports themselves will not be charged tariffs.
It is hard to say how long the formula will remain intact. Mr. Trump said Thursday that he was willing to make deals with other countries if the United States received something “phenomenal.”
WASHINGTON — A second day of market devastation shook Washington on Friday, vanishing more than $5 trillion in value in one of the largest 48-hour losses on record — an extraordinary rout caused not by pandemic, war, terrorism or bank failure, but by policy set by the American president.
The policy, announced by President Trump on Wednesday, would levy steep tariffs on nearly every nation in the world in the coming days, starting with a base tariff rate of 10% but climbing higher for some of the largest U.S. trading partners, including China, South Korea, Japan and the European Union.
The market drop has prompted a small but influential group of Republican senators to partner with Democrats in a nascent effort to wrest back control over tariff policy from Trump.
The Standard and Poor’s 500, NASDAQ and the Dow Composite all reeled over the news from the morning bell to close. The Dow dropped 2,231.07 points, or 5.5%, in its largest drop since the pandemic started, following a 1,679-point drop the day prior. The S&P 500 fell 5.97% to 5,074.08, and the NASDAQ dropped 5.8%, to 15,587.79, entering bear market territory.
Before the markets opened Friday, China announced it would reciprocate with a 34% tariff on imported U.S. goods. And as markets spiraled, the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, warned of “persistent” negative effects from the new trade policy.
“We face a highly uncertain outlook with elevated risks of both higher unemployment and higher inflation,” Powell said Friday. “Tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation.”
Reacting to the markets, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Tucker Carlson in an interview on Friday that “Wall Street’s done great. It can continue doing well.” But, he added, “it’s Main Street’s turn.”
“This is transformational for the American economy, for the American worker and for the new Republican alignment,” Bessent said. “I think this is the beginning of a process. We are going to reindustrialize. We have gone to a highly financialized economy — we have stopped making things, especially a lot of things that are relevant for national security.”
J.P. Morgan increased its assessment of the risk of recession this year to 60%, up from a 40% chance it had published just days prior. And the World Trade Organization warned of deep trouble to come if Trump refuses to change course.
“While the situation is rapidly evolving, our initial estimates suggest that these measures, coupled with those introduced since the beginning of the year, could lead to an overall contraction of around 1% in global merchandise trade volumes this year, representing a downward revision of nearly four percentage points from previous projections,” said Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, director-general of the WTO. “I’m deeply concerned about this decline.”
Asked about the chances of a U.S. and global recession hitting this year, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, said, “I’m very worried about it.”
“This is one of the most disastrous and poorly thought out policies that the Trump administration has done thus far, and that’s saying a lot,” he added.
Responding to the crisis, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) partnered with Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell from Washington state to introduce a bill that would require the president to submit new tariff policies to Congress for notification, review and approval.
“I’ve long expressed my view that Congress has delegated too much authority on trade to the executive branch under Republican & Democrat presidents,” Grassley wrote on X.
The bipartisan bill already has three additional Republican sponsors — Sens. Jerry Moran of Kansas, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Other Republicans, including Trump supporter Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, are expressing interest in the bill.
The Grassley-Cantwell bill marks the second time senators pushed back on Trump’s new import taxes in just a week. On Wednesday, in a rare rebuke of the president, the Senate passed a resolution Wednesday designed to thwart the imposition of tariffs on Canada.
Four Republicans — including Murkowski and McConnell — joined all Democrats in passing the resolution on a 51-48 vote.
Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives hopes the Grassley-Cantwell bill might have a path to passage in their chamber eventually, but one senior congressional aide said that leadership is doubtful anything will move in the short term.
“I don’t see it yet,” the aide said, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, “but down the road, it’s possible.”
The White House said that its base tariff rate of 10% would go into effect at midnight Saturday, and that its country-specific duties would go into force Wednesday.
Trump, meanwhile, told investors on social media Friday, “MY POLICIES WILL NEVER CHANGE.”
But in a separate post, the president said he had discussed a deal with leadership in Vietnam — one of the nations hardest hit, with a 46% tariff rate — in a sign he is willing to negotiate over the policy.
Trump stated that Vietnam would be willing to cut its tariffs “down to ZERO” to strike an agreement with the United States. But Vietnam’s tariffs on the few U.S. goods it purchases are already low. Instead, the high rate imposed by the Trump administration on Vietnam actually targets the U.S. trade deficit with Vietnam — a capitalist result of U.S. consumers wanting to purchase more Vietnamese goods than the other way around.
As with other countries, such as Israel and Switzerland, which have no import duties on U.S. goods, it is unclear what will be required from each country for Trump to lower or eliminate rates. A consistent measure for success has not been articulated by the administration. To the contrary, senior aides to Trump have repeatedly referred to the 10% baseline tariff rate as a new normal.
Cambodia, hit with a 49% import tax, also asked Trump on Friday to postpone implementation of the new rate.
The president is in Florida golfing at his resort for the weekend.
South Korea presidential ouster part of Chinese strategy to 'expand its regional influence,' expert says
Dems slam Elon Musk, Melania Trump with xenophobic attacks: ‘Go back to South Africa!’
Ivanka Trump's jiu-jitsu practice benefits whole family, celebrity trainers reveal
Patrick Mahomes nearly quit football in high school, mother says
Fox News AI Newsletter: 'Battlestar Galactica' is 'even more relevant now,' star says
-
News1 week agoTrump Is Trying to Gain More Power Over Elections. Is His Effort Legal?
-
Politics1 week agoTexas DOGE bill passes Senate to streamline state regulations
-
News1 week agoLeShon Johnson, Ex-N.F.L. Running Back, Ran Major Dogfighting Kennel, U.S. Says
-
News1 week agoFederal judge who drew Trump's anger picks up new case against administration
-
World1 week agoUS Army says vehicle of four missing soldiers found in Lithuania
-
Sports1 week agoStraight Outta L.A.: Ice Cube's new BIG3 team is the Riot and 'here to shake things up'
-
Technology1 week agoSome Kindles now let you double-tap anywhere to turn the page
-
Lifestyle1 week agoTiny Love Stories: ‘I Asked Him Back to My Place’