Musk Slashes Social Security as Republicans Debate What a “Cut” Is
Plus: The normalization of law-breaking continues.
The Social Security Administration is seemingly in a freefall after office closures and several weeks of layoffs have resulted in staffing levels being brought to historical lows. In March, the Social Security website crashed four times in a ten-day stretch, according to the Washington Post. It’s getting more difficult by the day for someone on Social Security to get a human being on the phone to deal with problems related to their payments. And thanks to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the customer-service components of Social Security have been severely hampered.
Donald Trump has long insisted that he would not cut Social Security benefits. And Republicans have, for the most part, adopted his approach—which has forced the party to argue that the cuts DOGE is making to the programs aren’t actually cuts, because they aren’t reducing the size of the Social Security checks that people are supposed to receive. They’re just affecting many other things related to the delivery of those checks.
“No cuts are supposed to happen through DOGE,” Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) said when I asked about changes being made to the most-trusted and supported government program. I noted that mass firings and office closures were hampering the SSA, and he responded, “Well, that’s a cut of staffing. What do you mean by cuts?”
“Cuts of monies is what I thought you meant—cuts of dollars,” Young added. “That’s what I understood you to mean when you first asked me that question.”
Young’s remarks get at, perhaps, the most consequential task awaiting Republicans this election cycle: Can they dramatically change (and worsen) the implementation of Social Security while also preventing their changes from being labeled cuts to the program?
It’s obvious that the direct payments a retiree or the child survivor of deceased recipients receives is a benefit of Social Security. But what about that retiree or child survivor’s ability to get someone on the phone to help resolve issues in a timely manner? How, in short, are benefits defined?
Young sits on the Senate Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security, so I asked if he had been notified in a timely manner when these cuts—as I define them—come down the pike from the freewheeling DOGE.
Not always within the day of or a couple of days of [firings or office closures], but I think the fact that Elon [Musk] came to the Republican lunch and laid out his methodology and his reporting plans going forward—I think that was helpful. And he’s made himself incredibly accessible to Republican senators, yeah.
The big question is whether these increasing lapses in Social Security’s larger functioning will result in the ultimate fear: missed or reduced direct payments to beneficiaries. Former Social Security Administration Commissioner Martin O’Malley, for one, has predicted a “thirty to ninety day” window before the whole system collapses on account of what Musk and DOGE are doing.
Young said he would be “open to any specific analysis” that O’Malley could provide “that demonstrates there is a real risk of interrupted Social Security payments.” Concerning O’Malley’s grim forecast, he added: “None of us want that.”
Social Security isn’t the only entitlement program being affected by Schrödinger’s cuts. Lawmakers are also debating if programmatic cuts are functionally different from benefit cuts in the case of Medicaid, the health insurance program for limited-income Americans. During an appearance on a CNN roundtable in February, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) said that many Republicans, himself included, would insist that the major party legislative initiative this year “not cut Medicaid benefits to our constituents. Period.”
The in-studio audience clapped. But Lawler’s brief pause between saying “Medicaid” and “benefits” prompted a followup from another panelist, comedian Michael Ian Black.
“So when that bill comes to the floor and there’s even a dollar in Medicaid cuts, you vote—” Black gestured to Lawler to answer before repeating the question with the key detail filled in: “Even a dollar in Medicaid cuts, you’re no?”
“On benefits,” Lawler said. “If you are eliminating any type of fraud or waste or abuse, that’s fine. But benefits to beneficiaries, no.”
After the segment, Black wrote the following on his Substack:
Congressman Lawler could have said that he hoped he would not be in a position to vote for Medicaid cuts. He could have said that he would vote for appropriate Medicaid cuts. He could have said any number of things about how difficult it is to balance priorities. He didn’t. He said he wouldn’t cut Medicaid. And if he wants to repeat that he said he wouldn’t “cut benefits to beneficiaries,” that’s fine, but he needs to explain how you cut hundreds of billions from Medicaid without reducing benefits or services. He can’t. Because it’s impossible. And he knows it’s impossible. He lied.
Despite Black’s claims, it’s not clear Lawler “lied” on the show. As is the case for all Republican defenders of the spending bill or the DOGE cuts, everything depends on how “benefits” is construed. What is clear is that Lawler provided a convenient out in the event the administration of Medicaid is cut while the “benefits to beneficiaries”—considered narrowly as the dollar amounts on their checks—remains the same.
Congressional Democrats have tried to make political hay out of all this, accusing Republicans of tacitly supporting Elon Musk as he carves up these entitlement programs. But the party doesn’t have much recourse, nor do they have the numbers to pass legislation either to stop Musk from moving forward or to reverse the damage he’s already caused.
“Donald Trump and House Republicans want to take a chainsaw to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Why? To pass a massive tax cut for Elon Musk and their billionaire donors,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told me on Monday. “That’s the whole scheme. It is a toxic scheme. Throughout the campaign, Donald Trump promised that Republicans were not going to touch Social Security, not going to touch Medicare, and not going to touch Medicaid. They lied.”
The Trump administration is holding its hands over the hottest stove in American politics. A revolt among seniors could doom the party’s political prospects. An estimated 40 percent of beneficiaries rely on Social Security benefits as their sole source of income.
It’s a massive, mindboggling gamble for congressional Republicans, too. Their inability—or refusal—to define what benefits are only heightens the risks being taken.
Left on read
“If a scandal comes to light and no one does anything about it—is it a real scandal?” wondered our own Bill Kristol in this morning’s Morning Shots newsletter.
My immediate impression after an evening in the U.S. Capitol on Monday was that the Atlantic’s Signal story is being treated essentially as a Hatch Act violation. That law, which is supposed to prevent egregiously political activity conducted by official personnel, is routinely taken for an annoying guideline rather than a strict, legally enforceable limit. When it’s violated, officials and their allies in Congress will acknowledge the mistake, but nothing ever really comes of it. In fact, nowadays, no one appears particularly bothered that Elon Musk regularly wears Trump campaign merchandise during official cabinet meetings in the White House’s Cabinet Room.
The Atlantic story—which revealed that top administration officials used a Signal group chat, which accidentally included a reporter, to game out military operations in flagrant violation of security protocols—is eliciting serious reactions, at least, partly because of how embarrassing it is to all involved. But on Capitol Hill, the public response from most Republicans wasn’t much more than a “whoops!” and a shrug.
While Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) told reporters he would be “looking into it,” some of his GOP colleagues dismissed the story altogether. Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) laughed the whole thing off, asking reporters, “People are still reading the Atlantic? I thought they were out of business.”1
“Do they wish it hadn’t happened? Of course—but this is not keeping the American people up at night,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). “Obviously, a mistake was made. But mistakes happen, and this is—trust me—this is not going to lead to the apocalypse, okay?”
If the only mistakes that truly merit public attention are ones that bring about the end of the world, I suppose no one in this administration has ever done wrong. Maybe that’s the point.
Johnny, be good
The far-right John Birch Society officially has a registered lobbyist on the payroll, according to a recent disclosure.
Per Legistorm:
The John Birch Society, a fringe advocacy group whose founder accused President Dwight Eisenhower of being a “dedicated, conscious agent of the communist conspiracy,” has registered to lobby the U.S. government.
Businessman Robert W. Welch Jr. founded the organization in 1958. It was named after John Birch, a U.S. military intelligence officer and Baptist missionary killed in China in 1945. Welch, a retired candy manufacturer whose company produced confections like Sugar Babies and Junior Mints, established the society to combat what he perceived as a communist conspiracy infiltrating the United States.
Founded in Indianapolis, Ind., and originally headquartered in Belmont, Mass., the John Birch Society relocated to Appleton, Wis., in 1989 and maintains local chapters throughout the United States. The organization is associated with ultraconservative ideology and has a long history of political advocacy, primarily focusing on anti-communism and promoting limited government.
Recent filings with the House and Senate indicate that the organization has registered Tim Marden as its inaugural lobbyist.
Marden, a development specialist for the John Birch Society, also serves as a city commissioner in Newberry, Fla. His background includes a bachelor's degree in food and resource economics from the University of Florida and experience in the insurance industry.
The far-right group used to play a far more prominent role in American politics, representing the interests and concerns of conspiracy theorists and fringe figures across the land. But with the fringe now constituting much of the GOP mainstream, it only makes sense for the traditionally mainstream government functions (like hiring a lobbyist) to be adopted by the fringe.
Much like The Bulwark, the Atlantic is actually doing quite well.
An interesting dilemma seems to be arising: MAGA - unnecessary to Trump now that he was elected - versus Musk. Surely these cuts and interferences with Social Security must hit the MAGA crowd, many of whom depend in it. But Musk cares not—he’s only looking out for himself … and chaos.
These forked tongue GOP are backing themselves into a corner that has no exit when it comes to Social Security. There is not one rep in the House or Senate across this entire country that doesn't have constituents on that program. If they continue with mealy mouth platitudes about what constitutes a "cut", the only cut will be their job.