The annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare trustees provide yearly opportunities for misunderstandings by politicians, the media, and the general public about the health of these programs. This year is no exception.

A case in point is the response by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) to the Social Security and Medicare trustees’ projections about the depletion of the programs’ reserves: “Doing nothing to address the solvency of these programs will result in an immediate, automatic, and catastrophic cut to benefits for the nearly 70 million seniors who rely on them.”

The reports say nothing about an “immediate” cut to benefits. They talk about cuts that might happen in 2034 and 2033, when there still would be enough money coming in to pay 89% of scheduled Medicare benefits and 81% of scheduled Social Security benefits.

House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) used the release of the reports to plump for the budget resolution that the House narrowly passed on orders from President Trump and that is currently being masticated by several Senate committees.

The reports, Smith said, make clear “how much we need pro-growth tax and economic policies that unleash our nation’s growth, increase wages, and create new jobs.” The budget bill “would do just that,” he said.

Neither Arrington nor Smith mentioned the leading threats to the programs coming from the White House. In Social Security’s case, that’s Trump’s immigration, taxation and tariff policies, which work directly against the program’s solvency. For Medicare, the major threat is a rise in healthcare costs.

But those have flattened out as a percentage of gross domestic product since 2010, when the enactment of the Affordable Care Act brought better access to medical care to millions of Americans.

That trend is jeopardized by Republican healthcare proposals, which encompass throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. Policy proposals by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. such as discouraging vaccinations can only drive healthcare costs higher.

Let’s take a closer look. (The Social Security trustees are Kennedy, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and newly confirmed Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, all of whom serve ex officio; two seats for public trustees are vacant. The Medicare trustees are the same, plus Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.)

The trust funds are built up from payroll taxes paid by workers and employers, along with interest paid on the treasury bonds the programs hold.

At the end of this year, the Medicare trust fund will hold about $245 billion, and the Social Security fund — actually two funds, consisting of reserves for the old-age and disability programs, but typically considered as one — more than $2.3 trillion.

Trump has consistently promised that he won’t touch Social Security and Medicare, but actions speak louder than words. “Trump’s tariffs and mass deportation program will accelerate the depletion of the trust fund,” Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities observed after the release of the trustees’ reports this week. “The Trump administration’s actions are weakening the country’s economic outlook and Social Security’s financial footing.”

Immigration benefits the program in several ways. Because “benefits paid out today are funded from payroll taxes collected from today’s workers,” notes CBPP’s Kiran Rachamallu, “more workers paying into the system benefits the program’s finances.” In the U.S., he writes, “immigrants are more likely to be of working age and have higher rates of labor force participation, compared to U.S.-born individuals.”

The Social Security trustees’ fiscal projections are based on average net immigration of about 1.2 million people per year. Higher immigration will help build the trust fund balances, and immigration lower than that will “increase the funding shortfall.” All told, “the Trump administration’s plans to drastically cut immigration and increase deportations would significantly worsen Social Security’s financial outlook.”

A less uplifting aspect of immigration involves undocumented workers. To get jobs, they often submit false Social Security numbers to employers — so payroll taxes are deducted from their paychecks, but they’re unlikely ever to be able to collect benefits. In 2022, Rachamallu noted, undocumented workers paid about $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes.

Trump’s tariffs, meanwhile, could affect Social Security by generating inflation and slowing the economy. Higher inflation means larger annual cost-of-living increases on benefits, raising the program’s costs. If they provoke a recession, that would weigh further on Social Security’s fiscal condition.

Trump also has talked about eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. But since at least half of those tax revenues flow directly into Social Security’s reserves, they would need to be replaced somehow. Trump has never stated where the substitute revenues could be found.

Major news organizations tend to focus on the depletion date of the trust funds without delving too deeply into their significance or, more important, their cause. It’s not unusual for otherwise responsible news organizations to parrot right-wing tropes about Social Security running out of money or “going broke” in the near future, which is untrue but can unnecessarily unnerve workers and retirees.

The question raised but largely unaddressed by the trustee reports is how to reduce the shortfall. The Republican answer generally involves cutting benefits, either by outright reductions or such options as raising the full retirement age, which is currently set between 66 and 67 for those born in 1952-1959 and 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later.

As I’ve reported, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut by another name. It’s also discriminatory, for average life expectancy is lower for some racial and ethnic groups than for others.

For all Americans, average life expectancy at age 65 has risen since the 1930s by about 6.6 years, to about 84 and a half. The increase has been about the same for white workers. But for Black people in general, the gain is just over five years, to an average of a bit over 83, and for Black men it’s less than four years and two months, to an average of about 81 and four months.

Life expectancy is also related to income: Better-paid workers have longer average lifespans than lower-income workers.

The other option, obviously, is to leave benefits alone but increase the programs’ revenues. This is almost invariably dismissed by the GOP, but its power is compelling.

The revenue shortfall experienced by Social Security is almost entirely the product of rising economic inequality in the U.S. At Social Security’s inception, the payroll tax was set at a rate that would cover about 92% of taxable wage earnings. Today, rising income among the rich has reduced that ratio to only about 82%. That could mean hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues.

The payroll tax is highly regressive. Those earning up to $176,100 this year pay the full tax of 12.4% on wage earnings (half deducted directly from their paychecks and half paid by their employers).

Those earning more than that sum in wages pay nothing on the excess. To put it in perspective, the payroll tax bite on someone earning $500,000 in wages this year would pay not 12.4% in payroll tax (counting both halves of the levy), but about 4.4%.

Eliminating the cap on wages, according to the Social Security actuaries, would eliminate half to three-quarters of the expected shortfall in revenues over the next 75 years, depending on whether benefits were raised for the highest earners. Taxing investment income — the source of at least half the income collected by the wealthiest Americans — at the 12.4% level rather than leaving it entirely untaxed for Social Security would reduce the shortfall by an additional 38%. Combining these two options would eliminate the entire shortfall.

Social Security has already been hobbled by the Trump administration, Trump’s promises notwithstanding. Elon Musk’s DOGE vandals ran roughshod through the program, cutting staff and closing field offices, and generally instilling fears among workers and retirees that the program might not be around long enough to serve them. In moral terms, that’s a crime.

Those are the choices facing America: Cutting benefits is a dagger pointed directly at the neediest Americans. Social Security benefits account for 50% or more of the income nearly 42% of all beneficiaries, and 90% or more of the income of nearly 15% of beneficiaries.

The wealthiest Americans, on the other hand, have been coasting along without paying their fair share of the program. Could the equities be any clearer than that?

As three key players vie for dominance, the race to put driverless taxis on roads across the country is heating up.

Waymo, owned by Google’s parent company Alphabet, already offers paid autonomous rides in a handful of cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles. Amazon’s robotaxi effort, known as Zoox, opened a new production facility in the Bay Area this week. The company has been testing its unique pill-shaped vehicles in California and Nevada since 2023.

Meanwhile, in Austin, Texas, Elon Musk just started testing driverless Teslas with the hopes of launching a commercial service soon. Musk unveiled a prototype for Tesla’s Cybercab late last year, touting his vision for an autonomous future and “an age of abundance.”

The arrival of self-driving tech could eventually affect society as much as the internet and smartphones did years ago, some experts predict. With Waymo leading the way and Tesla and Zoox trying to catch up quickly, a new status quo could be on the horizon, said Karl Brauer, an analyst with iSeeCars.com.

“Tesla has tried to catch up, and Zoox is a more recent competitor that’s hoping to be a serious player,” he said. “Waymo has been slow and steady and, as a result, is winning the race.”

According to some industry insiders, the U.S. is about 15 years from seeing widespread use of robotaxis, Brauer said. While Waymo taxis have become a common sight in the cities where they operate, weather conditions and charging infrastructure still limit their expansion.

On Wednesday, Waymo expanded its service area in Los Angeles County, where its vehicles now roam an area of more than 120 square miles. The company also increased its service area in San Francisco, expanding access to suburbs and Silicon Valley.

Days after Waymo’s announcement, Zoox opened a 220,000-square-foot facility in Hayward, Calif., that the company says will be able to produce 10,000 robotaxis per year. Zoox is preparing to launch its public ride-hailing service in Las Vegas and San Francisco this year.

Unlike Waymo vehicles, which are retrofitted Jaguars, Zoox is developing a purpose-built taxi with no steering wheel or gas pedals.

Zoox also has a manufacturing plant in Fremont, Calif., where the company develops its test fleets of retrofitted Toyota Highlanders. Tesla has a manufacturing facility in Fremont as well.

Musk has promised for years to deliver autonomous vehicles and a robust ride-hailing service. Lawmakers in Austin requested this week that he delay the rollout of his service in the city.

Tesla, Zoox and Waymo are the three remaining major U.S. companies in what was once a more crowded field, Brauer said. General Motors’ autonomous taxi company Cruise suspended operations in 2023 after one of its vehicles struck and dragged a pedestrian in San Francisco. Last year, Uber and Cruise announced a partnership that could put Cruise vehicles back on the road.

A company called Argo AI, backed by Ford and Volkswagen, was also developing driverless technology until it shut down in 2022.

The continued expansion of robotaxis depends on safe and successful testing, Brauer said. There have been several incidents related to Tesla’s Full Self-Drive mode, a technology currently available but still in development. Waymo has issued recalls of some of its vehicles on multiple occasions.

“If there’s a tragic result for any of these three companies during the testing and development process, it would likely slow down the entire industry,” Brauer said.

At Pasadena’s AC Hotel earlier this month, dozens of protesters gathered in an effort to confront federal agents who had arrived in town amid demonstrations against the Trump administration’s mass deportation effort.

Pasadena Mayor Victor Gordo was among those present on June 7 as demonstrators holding signs with “ICE out of Pasadena” and other messages chased federal vehicles out of the luxury hotel’s parking garage, cheering and recording it all on their cellphones.

The mayor said the protest forced the agents to leave the place they were using for local accommodations during their L.A. operations, which involved protecting federal buildings downtown.

“Word got out that there were Homeland Security vehicles parked at the hotel,” Gordo told The Times. “People wanted to express their 1st Amendment rights and they did so in a lawful, nonviolent and respectful manner.”

After hours of noisy rallying, the hotel staff asked the feds to pack up their things and go, according to Gordo. By sunset, uniformed agents from the Federal Protective Service, part of the Department of Homeland Security, were seen walking out of the hotel with their bags stacked on a luggage cart in a video of the incident that went viral online. Their vehicles were escorted out of the garage by local police as protesters trailed behind.

Hotels have emerged as hot spots for confrontations between community members and immigration agents. Federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, sometimes rent blocks of rooms in places where agents are dispatched for major operations.

The showdown in Pasadena was one of several recent instances of protesters coming together at hotels across the Los Angeles region to put pressure on their proprietors to offer no quarter to federal personnel during the Trump administration’s crackdown. The businesses, which rely on immigrant workers for cleaning and maintenance, have been cast into an awkward position — one that requires balancing politics with protecting their employees.

From Whittier to Hawaiian Gardens to Brea, concerned citizens have repeatedly taken to social media and whisper networks to share locations where they have spotted who they believe are federal agents. And people have followed up on such information by staging protests outside hotels in communities including Long Beach, Downey and Glendale.

Employees at the AC Hotel Pasadena referred inquiries to a spokeswoman, who did not immediately provide a comment. It was back to business as usual Tuesday afternoon at the Marriott property, which opened earlier this year. A man on a plush couch worked on his laptop, a woman sipped a beer at the bar and staff milled about.

Gordo said he had confirmed that there are no longer any Homeland Security agents staying at the property.

The Homeland Security press office did not immediately provide comment, and agencies under the department’s umbrella, including ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, did not respond to inquires.

Protesters have been arrested this month for allegedly interfering with federal officers, and federal agencies have expressed concerns about the repercussions of people “doxxing” agents by sharing their locations and other personal information online.

“People are out there taking photos of the names, their faces and posting them online with death threats to their family and themselves,” Reuters reported acting ICE chief Todd Lyons said last week.

Pasadena police block the entrance to the Hotel Dena in Pasadena last week.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

The crowd-sourced effort to spread information about where federal agents are holed up plays out mostly online.

In some instances, the unverified reports come from people who work at the hotels. Other times, hotel guests or area residents see suspected agents outside or in the lobby, or walk through parking lots in search of federal vehicles.

During the first days after the L.A. enforcement effort began, it was fairly easy to tell where agents were staying by looking for vehicles with agency logos. But it appears that they have caught on to the surveillance tactics of those who would like to see them go home.

On Monday, a Times reporter visited 13 hotels in three Southland counties — from Westchester to Garden Grove to Ontario — where federal immigration agents recently had been rumored to be staying, according to social media posts and alerts on apps and websites dedicated to tracking ICE activity. No vehicles in any of the hotels’ parking lots bore clear visual indications that they were federal agents’ cars, vans or trucks.

At five hotels, employees approached by The Times declined to comment. At three, employees agreed to speak but declined to give their names, citing corporate policies. Two of them said in brief interviews that they were not sure whether agents were staying on the premises. A third, who works at a chain hotel in Anaheim, said he had seen who he believed were ICE agents at the property last week, but they were no longer staying there.

Workers at the Hilton Pasadena show support for community members taking part in a June 12 protest.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

“They didn’t bother anyone,” said the man, who declined to provide his name out of fear of reprisal from his employer or immigration authorities. “There were maybe, like, a dozen of them. It was a little concerning.”

Workers such as him have been subjected to political whiplash in recent days. Last week, President Trump wrote on Truth Social that “Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them.” That same day, a senior ICE official sent guidance to regional ICE officials directing them to avoid raiding farms, hotels and restaurants and instead emphasize other targets.

The development gave hotel employees hope that they were out of the crosshairs. But the Trump administration quickly reversed course, saying this week that there is now no reprieve for hotel workers and others who Trump had praised just days earlier.

Andrew Mark, a pastor at Pasadena Covenant Church, also addressed the crowd at the June 7 rally outside the AC Hotel. He said in an interview that he was impressed — but not surprised — that the community came together and forced change.

“There’s a deep pride in Pasadena. So I think that for agents to be staying in a hotel here, you feel … a sense that we don’t want this to be a place where they can stage and go out and target people,” he said. “The fact that they were based in a hotel in our community was unsettling.”

On Tuesday, Manuel Vicente sat behind his makeshift desk in a soundproof room at the Pasadena Community Job Center, which helps connect day laborers with employment opportunities. As director of Radio Jornalera, he creates audio and video content to help migrant workers, including content that informs them of the rights they have during encounters with immigration enforcement agents.

Vicente said he believes the successful protest at the AC Hotel Pasadena is an example of a saying he likes to quote, “Pueblo salva el pueblo,” or “Only the people save the people.”

“When they were kicked out of the hotel, everybody was excited,” he said. “It was a small victory, but our efforts made a difference. We need to be together to protect our community, to protect our workers.”