| Donald Trump is obsessed with branding. And he has quite a formidable record of attaching his name to, and taking credit for, all manner of things. |
| In 2016, when he was the president-elect, CBS News said that Trump “has put his name on everything from vodka to planes to casinos. Though most Trump-branded projects aren’t built by the mogul himself—he prefers to license his name — Trump is often eager to take credit.” It listed hotels, steaks, perfume, wine, bottled water, casinos, and a clothing line that bears his name. |
| During his first term, Trump made sure that his signature would be on economic stimulus checks sent to millions of Americans during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, his name has appeared on bibles, sneakers, cryptocurrency, and, with the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a tax-deferred savings account for newborns. |
| The president seems determined to enlist the entire federal government to tout his accomplishments. So why was I surprised last week when I received an email from the Social Security Administration entitled “Social Security Applauds Passage of Legislation Providing Historic Tax Relief for Seniors”? |
| Maybe because it seemed a step too far. |
| That email did not merely provide information about the provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. And the information it provided was limited and slanted at best. |
| Instead, it seemed to be sent to let recipients know that the Social Security Administration is “celebrating the passage of the One Big, Beautiful Bill, a landmark piece of legislation that delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans.” |
| Tax relief is an artful way of describing what the bill offers. The message sent by the SSA is “misleading,” though it fits with President Trump’s own preferred narrative. |
| Last week, at events in Iowa and at the White House, the president said with his usual level of boastfulness, “After this kicks in, our country is going to be a rocket ship economically and we’ve delivered no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security for our great seniors.” |
| Alas, the legislation does not end taxation of Social Security benefits and does not even briefly curtail it for all seniors. |
| The Social Security Administration should not have lent itself to the president’s public relations campaign. And it would now be well advised to clear up the confusion its email caused. |
| Such clarity would be a way for the agency to reassert what once was its key characteristic. On its website, the SSA notes that it “began life as an independent agency in 1935, became a sub-cabinet agency in 1939, and returned full circle to independent status in 1995.” |
| Thirty years ago, the SSA itself held a ceremony celebrating its return to independence and debuted a new flag to signify that status. In a policy document marking the occasion, it explained that “The impetus behind an independent SSA emanated primarily from a desire to separate Social Security policymaking from economic and budgetary decisions affecting the rest of the Federal Government.” |
| It went on to say that “proponents of SSA’s independence wanted to insulate it from everyday political, fiscal, and operational policy decisions of the Government.” To help accomplish that goal, the 1995 law created a fixed six-year term for future Administrators of the Social Security Administration. |
| At the time, President Bill Clinton observed, “With an independent Social Security Administration, we are reinventing our government to streamline our operations so that we can serve the American people better. We are strengthening those things which Social Security ought to do and taking precautions to make sure it does not do things which it ought not to do.” |
| Like sending last week’s email. |
| Clinton was right to say, “If we keep focus on the work we are sent here to do, what we do here today can be but the precursor of things that we also can do to benefit the American people that will be historic for all time.” |
| I don’t think Clinton could have foreseen that the agency’s work would include reminding recipients that they should be grateful that the current president had made good on his “promise to protect Social Security and help ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they’ve earned.” |
| In fact, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act does nothing to protect Social Security or to address the ongoing crisis in funding the Social Security Trust Fund. It is not news to reiterate that it is due to run out of money in less than a decade. If nothing is done, when that happens, benefits will have to be cut. |
| As even Fox Business News had to admit, the bill will “speed up the insolvency of the trust funds that help finance Social Security and Medicare.” |
| Of course, the SSA’s email did not mention that. Moreover, it wasted an opportunity to rally public support for addressing Social Security’s bleak future. |
| It said nothing about the fact that a few months ago, the Trump administration fired thousands of SSA employees, or that the president appointed Frank Bisignano to lead the agency. His major qualification seems to be that he “has a long history of political giving, mainly to Republicans.” |
| Such an appointment is perfectly consistent with President Trump’s desire to end the independence of agencies like the Social Security Administration. He has so far been aided in that plan by a series of favorable Supreme Court rulings. |
| That is why the SSA can get away with joining the president’s effort to use the One Big Beautiful Bill to burnish his brand. |
| But, as The Guardiannotes, the truth of the matter is that the spending bill “does not actually eliminate federal taxes on social security due to the rule constraints of passing a bill…through the reconciliation process, to avoid a Democratic filibuster.” It provides only “a temporary tax deduction of up to $6,000 for people aged 65 and older, and $12,000 for married seniors. These benefits will start to phase out for those with incomes of more than $75,000 and married couples of more than $150,000 a year.” |
| Other noteworthy omissions in the SSA email: At present, only higher-income beneficiaries now have to pay taxes on their Social Security benefits, and the new deduction does not help anyone younger than age 65. That excludes “many disability beneficiaries, people who retired before 65, and those whose spouse or parent died.” |
| NBC News quotes Jeff Nesbit, a former top Social Security Administration official who served in government across four administrations, both Democrat and Republican: “The agency has never issued such a blatant political statement.” |
| Nesbit posted on X: “The fact that Trump and his minion running SSA has done this is unconscionable.” |
| Yes, the Social Security Administration’s email is ethically questionable. It is also a reminder of the president’s desire to make sure he gets credit for anything and everything, regardless of whether it is deserved or based on accurate information. |
| Seniors rely on Social Security for more than money. They need and trust it to offer reliable information about eligibility, benefits, and its own financial well-being. |
| Last week’s email is a betrayal of that trust. It will help undermine trust in the SSA, so much the better for a president whose style of governance would make Machiavelli proud. |
| So much the worse for the agency, senior citizens, and the American people. |
Have friends who like law? Forward this email. 
Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. 
Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. 
