With Social Security barreling toward insolvency, the government is increasing benefits in January.
On Wednesday, the Social Security Administration (SSA) announced that retirees will receive a 3.6 percent increase in Social Security benefits next year. The raise, which was unveiled shortly after the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported consumer prices rose 3.7 percent year over year in September, will amount to an increase of $75 per month for the average beneficiary. It also represents a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) that will be 0.8 percentage points higher than last year's, which was 2.8 percent, and 0.9 percentage points higher than what was projected by the Social Security Trustees, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
"Social Security will implement this cost-of-living adjustment for 76 million Americans, giving them greater financial stability," said SSA Commissioner Frank J. Bisignano in a press release. "Under President Donald J. Trump, Social Security is delivering better, faster, higher-quality service for the American people."
But the announcement comes as Social Security faces a looming funding cliff.
The program has been spending considerably more than it receives for years, thanks in large part to the U.S. demographic problem: Birth rates have collapsed, life expectancy has risen, and there are fewer working-age people paying taxes to fund retirees. In 2025, the program collected $1.45 trillion in revenue and spent $1.61 trillion, leaving a $160 billion shortfall. Trust fund reserves covered the gap, but they are rapidly dwindling. In June, Social Security's Trustees projected that, without legislative changes, incoming revenue would cover only 78 percent of scheduled retirement and survivor benefits by late 2032—a 22 percent shortfall. Combined retirement and disability funds are expected to run out by 2034. There are a handful of fixes, including raising the retirement age, reducing benefits, raising the cap on earnings, means-testing the program, privatizing it, or getting rid of it altogether.
While many lawmakers have acknowledged reality, Congress remains divided on how to address the issue. In August, Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) blocked a proposal from Sen. Bill Cassidy (R–La.) to establish a congressional process to consider reforms, arguing that it would slash retiree benefits and help billionaires "avoid paying their fair share."
"People are objecting to doing their job," Cassidy complained in September. "Congress needs to fix Social Security this year."
What makes Wednesday's increase even more unjustified is the fact that older Americans are already among the wealthiest age groups in the country. According to the Federal Reserve's latest Survey of Consumer Finances released last week, households headed by someone aged 75 or older had a median net worth of $504,900 in 2025, compared with just $33,000 for households headed by someone under 35. Despite their relative wealth compared to working-age people, retirees are getting a COLA increase that is greater than the average worker, whose wages have risen by 3 percent in the last year.
For the very wealthiest beneficiaries, the 2027 COLA will constitute an enormous increase. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the highest-earning couples who retired this year will receive a combined increase of $3,600, meaning that their combined benefits would exceed $100,000 next year. However, without congressional action, Social Security recipients could expect a 22 percent cut that, in 2032, would wipe out the previous nine years' COLAs all at once.
Despite years of warnings about Social Security's deteriorating finances, Congress has yet to enact reforms to avert the looming shortfall. For now, beneficiaries can look forward to larger checks in January, even as the program moves closer to the day when it can no longer pay the benefits it has promised.
The post Social Security Is Running Out of Money. Benefits Are Rising 3.6% Next Year Anyway. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
The federal government just closed fiscal year 2026 with a deficit of nearly $2 trillion, according to figures the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released last Thursday. Only the two pandemic years of 2020 and 2021 were worse. Today, though, there is no recession and no emergency. These enormous budget deficits are the new normal.
The usual response to a deficit warning is that the government just needs more money. It doesn't. Thanks to the remarkable strength of the private sector, federal revenue rose by 3 percent, to more than $5.4 trillion, over the fiscal year. But spending rose by 6 percent, reaching $7.4 trillion.
Some will blame the Supreme Court for striking down most of President Donald Trump's tariffs and forcing the government to issue refunds. But even if Washington had kept the $130 billion in illegal levies, it would cover less than one-tenth of the gap. Tariffs were never a serious revenue source at our insanely high level of spending.
Look at where the money went. Spending on the three main entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—grew by 7 percent. That's faster than total spending growth. Defense grew by 5 percent. Interest on the debt rose by 11 percent, exceeding $1.1 trillion. That last figure is the bill for every earlier year of borrowing—years when Washington was sending clear signals that it isn't serious about fiscal responsibility.
If you want to see where such irresponsibility can lead, look at France. The country that big spenders from Paul Krugman to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) have cited as proof that big government is viable and full of upsides is now on the brink of a serious crisis. France's debt equals 120 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), and interest payments are rising quickly. Slow growth and social unrest aren't helping.
The U.S., of course, has some advantages that France doesn't, largely because we're a country of innovators with a private sector unmatched at creating wealth. Nonetheless, debt that is swelling out of control should still worry us. First, the same anti-wealth and anti-growth forces that brought France to where it is now are gaining popularity here. Second, we too will see debt reach 120 percent of GDP in a few years, and our interest payments are already consuming an alarming share of resources.
A wise Congress would put us on safer footing if only because debt raises interest rates for everyone, from homebuyers to small businesses. This operates as a drag on growth, and hence on wages. In other words, controlling debt should be part of an affordability agenda in the same way as streamlining regulation.
When legislators decide to take affordability seriously, I recommend looking at a September Advancing American Freedom (AAF) report on this topic. Its section on fiscal restraint offers a useful menu of reforms, including targeting the programs that most drive the debt.
Start with Social Security. Under current law, benefits will be cut by roughly 20 percent when the program's trust fund runs dry in the early 2030s. Nobody believes Congress will actually let that happen, but we'd better hope its answer isn't to double down by borrowing the difference between payroll taxes and benefits.
Nor are tax increases an option. The payroll tax meant to fund entitlements is now 12.4 percent of wages. It began at 2 percent when Social Security was first rolled out. It is also the most burdensome tax for many Americans. Enough already. The fixes AAF fellow Rachel Greszler proposes are worth considering: Index the retirement age to life expectancy, use an accurate inflation measure for cost-of-living adjustments, and move gradually toward a flat universal benefit that protects lower-income retirees while ending Social Security's de facto welfare for the wealthiest.
Next is Medicare. More than 40 percent of its financing already comes from general revenue rather than from payroll taxes. The report recommends converting the program to premium support, giving beneficiaries a fixed contribution to spend on traditional Medicare or on competing private plans. It would also raise the eligibility age to 67, matching Social Security, and trim subsidies for well-off seniors. That's a start.
As for Medicaid, the problem is one of pricing. And yet competition based on price—the best cost-control tool—has never been seriously tried. Washington covers 90 percent of the cost of states' expanded Medicaid programs for adults. A state can buy a dollar of spending with just a dime of its own money. Changing the states' incentives would be key here. Implementing risk-adjusted per-capita caps, through which the federal government would give states a fixed amount per enrollee, would do just that. States would pay for their own inefficiencies or would be able to use every dollar they save by becoming more efficient.
The same logic supports returning more welfare programs to states, starting with the federal share of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. State governments have to balance their budgets in some form.
None of these reforms are painless. But the alternatives will prove far more painful. The U.S. will either continue paying a slow, unlegislated tax called inflation or face a fast, ugly fiscal crisis when bond buyers stop giving Washington the benefit of the doubt.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM
The post The Federal Government Collected $5.4 Trillion. It Still Can't Pay Its Bills. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
The fifth Federal University March is taking place this Thursday, October 15, across Argentina. Participants are mobilizing toward the National Congress to demand compliance with the University Financing Law (No. 27.795), the restoration of salaries for both academic and non-academic staff, and the definitive rejection of the Javier Milei administration’s Emergency Decree (DNU) 70/23.
RELATED:
Argentina’s Basic Basket Costs Outpace Inflation as Poverty Line Climbs
Under the slogan Without funding, there is no science or education, the university community is calling for the immediate implementation of regulations that mandate the adjustment of operating funds, salaries, and scholarships in line with inflation. The protest was organized by the National Interuniversity Council (CIN), the Argentine University Federation (FUA), and the National Universities Trade Union Front.
Organizers report that academic and non-academic staff have seen their purchasing power decline by more than 32 percent so far this year. This action follows a judicial ruling that upheld injunctions and imposed financial penalties on the national government for failing to adjust funds and wages as required by law.
In the City of Buenos Aires, the main contingent—led by the University of Buenos Aires (UBA)—will gather at 1:00 p.m. at Plaza Houssay (at the intersection of Córdoba and Junín streets). Labor unions and social movements will begin assembling at 1:30 p.m. in the vicinity of the National Congress.
At 2:00 p.m., the march will proceed along Avenida Córdoba to Callao, then continue via Corrientes and Cerrito toward the parliamentary district. At 4:00 p.m., a joint statement from rectors, students, and labor unions will be read at Plaza del Congreso.
[AHORA] Estudiantes tomaron la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales en la previa de la Quinta Marcha Federal Universitaria.
— Argentina|12 (@argentina12ok) October 15, 2026
Sumate a 'Diario de la noche' con @analiaargento, @eduardoprensa_ y @cotyvile 👉https://t.co/A3pv6QUv5q pic.twitter.com/H07gWnXj2U
The text reads, “[NOW] Students took over the Faculty of Social Sciences ahead of the Fifth Federal University March.”
The protest coincides with a debate in the Chamber of Deputies regarding Emergency Decree (DNU) 70/23—a measure that has already been rejected by the Senate. The organizing groups aim to exert pressure to ensure the Lower House rejects the measure definitively.
The decree—viewed by the organizers as a cornerstone of the government’s ultraliberal agenda—impacts numerous sectors beyond education. Although the Supreme Court reversed its position, leaving the Land Law in effect following legal back-and-forth regarding its Article 154, universities have maintained their call to action due to the broad scope of the regulation.
Consequently, the day’s events bring together social, labor, political, and student organizations. The initiative also has the backing of the CGT, both branches of the CTA, ATE, and various scientific organizations—representing a coalition of workers and students united in defense of public education.
The protest movement spans the entire country. In Córdoba, the National University has suspended classes and is holding a march through the city center. In Santa Fe and Rosario, demonstrations are planned in response to disruptions in institutional operations, scholarship programs, and research activities. Higher education institutions across all provinces are staging strikes and protests.
This mobilization follows a series of strikes, open-air classes, and awareness-raising events. The organizers maintain that the implementation of Law 27.795 is essential to guarantee the continued operation of universities, sustain scientific research, and restore wages within the education sector.
🇦🇷 Argentine students have occupied the Education Secretariat to demand increased funding for public universities amid growing concerns about the future of higher education.
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 9, 2026
The student mobilization underscores the struggle to defend public education and secure the resources… pic.twitter.com/VGBlC1pZK0
Trump’s war on Iran has already cost the average American household $2,000 according to Moody’s, and the bill keeps climbing. Jodie Evans, co-founder of CODEPINK, tells Rania Khalek and Zoe Alexandra that a mass “Taxpayer Uprising” this November is the only way to block Trump’s historic $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget, as both parties keep writing checks for weapons manufacturers.
Evans breaks down how military contractors, Big Oil, and AI tech giants “make a killing on killing,” and explains why Republicans and Democrats are both at fault for a US war economy that funnels taxpayer money to billionaires, militarizes the police, and criminalizes Gaza solidarity and calls for peace. She warns about the push to merge the US and Israeli military industries, and responds to allegations from Marco Rubio’s State Department that anti-war activists are working for Cuba. But Evans believes Americans still have the power to stop the war machine. Pointing to youth uprisings in France, Spain, and India, she says: “Let’s stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, and of the young people around the world… It’s time for the people to stand up, speak out, and say no!”
Watch full episodes of BT Live, join breakthroughnews.org as a member today!
******
Rough transcript follows:
[Host:] The Pentagon is about to get the biggest budget in American history. The House has advanced more than a trillion dollars for the military. That’s a $234 billion jump in a single year. And the White House is actually demanding even more: $1.5 trillion. At the same time, Republicans want billions in cuts to programs that working people depend on. So they have money for war, but never for the poor.
Then there’s Trump’s war on Iran. The Pentagon says it has cost around $29 billion. And that was actually back in June—that’s the Pentagon saying that. It’s definitely a lowball because it doesn’t count replacing munitions or repairing bases that Iran hit. Moody’s has actually put the real cost to American taxpayers and consumers at $132 billion and climbing. Most of it is being seen at the gas pump.
And on day one of that war, you may remember, Zoe, a U.S. missile destroyed a school in Iran. At least 175 people were killed, including over 100 schoolchildren. So that’s where all of that money is going: to bomb schools. On top of that, billions keep flowing to the Israelis. And ICE is sitting on $75 billion in new money from Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill—money to cage and deport the same working people this government says it can’t afford to help.
Now, none of this is popular. Trump’s approval is in the gutter. Yet Congress keeps writing the checks. So why isn’t public opposition turning into a change in policy? And who’s profiting from that gap? CodePink says the answer is to take it straight to Washington. Next month, right after the midterms and before the new Congress is sworn in, they’re bringing what they call a taxpayer uprising to Washington, D.C.: three days of nonviolent action against a system that, in their words, bombs schools instead of building them.
Joining us now to discuss is CodePink co-founder Jodie Evans. Jodie, welcome to BT Live.
[Jodie Evans:] Thank you, and thank you for having me. I love you two so much, and I’m so sad about the attacks for being people who support peace and humanity. It’s—
[Host:] Exactly what it is. That’s the crime: supporting peace and humanity. And that’s something you’re always doing, Jodie, which is what this campaign’s all about. But before we get to the campaign, I wanted to ask you about some of the reasoning behind it. This war—I mentioned this Iran war—is so unpopular. People can’t afford rent. They can’t afford groceries. They can’t afford health care. The costs of all those things are constantly going up. Congress is still moving the largest Pentagon budget in history. Why is public opposition, which is high, not translating into policy? Your call to action puts both parties on notice. Republicans are in charge right now, so explain why both parties are at fault.
[Jodie Evans:] Well, both parties have been at fault for the last 25 years of the War on Terror, because we’ve been trying to stop this war bill for that long, and every year it gets voted for. When Hegseth presented this $1.5 trillion war budget, everyone rolled their eyes and said, “And it will pass again.” And I said, “Wash your mouths with soap. We are going to fight, and we are going to stop it, because this bill cannot go through.”
This is double the Biden bill, when already the Biden bill was the greatest contributor to climate change. It’s stealing our taxpayer money, killing people, murdering children, and destroying the Earth. Our tax dollars are supposed to be spent on services for us, not making us less safe and more anxious, and destroying the planet, which is our future. So we’ve got to show up and fight.
Yes, 70% of the country is against war. But that’s not reflected in the halls of Congress. These people aren’t feeling it. They’re owned by the weapons manufacturers. And guess who gets this money? Half of it—$750 billion—goes to the weapons manufacturers. They’re making a killing on killing. They’re making so much profit. The crime of having wars be profitable—let’s just start there.
I think there are something like 2,000 lobbyists in Washington who take the money they make from your tax dollars and then spend it on buying politicians. We have to show up. We have to be in the streets. We have to be in the halls of Congress, because they have to feel us.
All of this—the murdering of children, the devastation in Gaza, the war on Iran, the anxiety we feel every day about what’s going to happen to Cuba, looking at what’s happened to Venezuela, looking at fishermen being murdered in the Caribbean—is debilitating. It’s depressing. It’s heartbreaking. We watch a lot of people just ask, “What do I do?” and literally crawl in a hole. But we know that doesn’t help you, either.
The anxiety in America is a disease. It’s forced on us by these people in power, by these weapons manufacturers. Showing up, being engaged, being in the halls of Congress is how we actually help ourselves right now and help the future by stopping this war bill. It must be stopped. We have to show up. We’re inviting everyone to come through the halls of Congress November 10th through 12th, to flood the halls of Congress with “I am a taxpayer, and you can no longer use my money for war and genocide.”
[Host:] I think it’s crucially important, especially your point about people having this anxiety and feeling like they can’t do anything. You’re really pointing out a clear path forward. Let’s continue to follow the money and what you’ve explored and researched. Your campaign names the weapons industry, Big Oil, and the AI tech giants as the people and entities that Congress actually represents, so to speak. Who is cashing in on this war economy? How much does that explain why Congress won’t say no to them? And talk a bit about what you’ve written about and are fighting for instead, which is this concept of the peace economy.
[Jodie Evans:] First of all, it’s actually a few people. It’s not a lot of people; it’s just the billionaires. Think about this: We are taking our hard-earned tax dollars and literally handing them over to billionaires and these weapons companies. You know it’s the weapons companies, but it’s also OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Oracle. Think about where this money goes. It goes to make the billionaires richer, and they have been owning the members of Congress. It’s literally a revolving-door system. They go from Congress to working for the military contractor. They go from being a general to working for a military contractor.
Do you know another thing that’s not talked about? In every single congressional office, there’s a military attaché assigned to it who literally sells war to the staff. They’re in the office saying, “No, we have to go to war. You have to pay for war. You have to pay for this.” And we know they fund bogus things. Even with the military, I think there was a ship they funded that they knew wasn’t going to work. They take your money and waste it on ships, airplanes, and actually executing a war.
At the same time, AI wars are very serious. We’ve just found out that probably the AI that killed those girls and boys at the school in Iran literally saw the children in the playground that it hit. The dehumanization of war and AI is dehumanization on a whole other level, because there’s no human in it. They’re just operating out of ideas and shooting whatever they think fits the idea of what they’re supposed to shoot. It’s frightening on steroids.
And we see it in our streets. Let’s not forget that all of the weaponry in our streets starts with the war budget, and then it’s just been broken off and brought to our streets. What’s important to talk about in this bill is also the merging of our defense industry with a foreign one—with Israel. Part of this bill is to merge U.S. and Israeli military cooperation in building weapons and technology. So the whole thing is just frightening on steroids.
You talk about the peace economy. Well, 15 years ago, during Obama, I realized: “Oh, we can’t end war until we end the war economy,” because war serves the war economy, which is capitalism. The oil industry—all the things we hate about capitalism—are served by war, including trying to shut people up who are for peace, like CodePink and you all at BreakThrough News. It’s like it is now a crime to talk about peace.
[Host:] The head of the International Red Cross was in The New York Times this weekend. A woman who doesn’t usually speak out decided to finally do an interview because she’s freaked out. Not only is this funding war, it’s funding barbarism, because there are no more rules. This is funding literal insanity. These weapons don’t have rules around them anymore. We’ve watched that with Gaza. We’ve watched the most horrendous things happen in front of our eyes. This is at a whole other level. We talk about our concerns. We wring our hands, we fret, we show up at rallies, but now we have to show up where congressional members make that vote and tell them they can no longer do this. It has to stop. This is the moment. It has to stop, and we’ve got to show up and say no.
You know, Jodie, speaking of the way they’re criminalizing advocacy for peace, one way they go after people—whether it’s on Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or China—is by telling us those countries are evil and are the enemy. You’ve been doing peace work basically your entire life, and every time those narratives label an entire country the enemy, as I’ve heard you say before, it ends up justifying mass destruction and mass killing. Then anyone who pushes back is accused of being influenced by that country or working on its behalf. Lately, it’s Cuba. There was that State Department report that came out naming all these people as working on behalf of Cuba to try to end war. What’s your response to the accusation that everybody who wants peace is just acting on behalf of—name your enemy country?
[Jodie Evans:] Well, that’s one of the greatest tools of how you start a war.
[Host:] Yeah.
[Jodie Evans:] It’s the first act of war. It’s a lie. It’s a distortion. But it’s an effective distortion. Their tools are effective, or they wouldn’t be using them. And they do silence people. They do make people confused about what’s right and what’s true. It makes people question, and that’s where they get people to shut down.
Thank you both so much, Zoe and Rania, for never shutting up and for raising up voices that speak the truth. That’s what we can do, because they’re intending to confuse. They’re intending to silence. They’re intending to make people feel afraid and anxious and confused and unsure. That’s why the clarity of our voices—and never stopping to speak up for peace and life and for the people, for humanity—is so important. There’s never an excuse for war. War itself is dehumanizing. War is a crime and it’s a racket. So why are we letting it happen? Why do we let our Congress members get away with this?
Hegseth—this is his bill. He’s the guy who just said he’s going to live-stream a firing squad on a Palestinian. This is an insane human being. Insane. Really? We’re about to give him $1.5 trillion of our hard-earned money? No, I’m going to show up. No, you cannot give him my money. That’s crazy. That act alone is crazy, besides everything it’s going to do. What are we not paying attention to?
Somehow they get all these lies out to confuse people: “Oh my God, what if Cuba—what if China funds—” That is ridiculous. The fact that Media and I have been working for peace for 55 years of our lives doesn’t matter. That doesn’t get in the story: that this is what our lives have been about, and that no one’s ever paid us for it. We do it as volunteers, which is what all the peace activists do. This isn’t a job. Peace and working for life isn’t a job. It’s not a career. It’s what you do when you watch insanity. It’s the thing you throw your life at because you care about a future and you care about humanity.
[Host:] I just want to note: It’s actually interesting when you say, “We do this as volunteers.” People who are doing what they’re doing because they’re paid a lot of money cannot fathom the idea of doing something out of principle, or because you care about the world. [Laughter and gasps] So it kind of makes sense. They’re like, “Well, of course someone has to be paying you to do this. Why else would you? Why would you want to stop war unless someone’s funding it?”
And they’re the people you guys are going after in the halls of Congress. Hopefully, everyone watching has seen these videos of the amazing CodePink volunteers just outing everyone who takes AIPAC money, who takes money from weapons manufacturers—which, in a way, is kind of all of them. Incredible work. They think, “Okay, well, they’re so persistent. There must be money behind it.” But obviously—
[Jodie Evans:] I mean—
[Host:] No, there’s a future that’s being stolen, a planet that’s being stolen, and people are being murdered. I mean, you know—
[Jodie Evans:] All of CodePink, except for our small team of 12, is there to support the volunteers with what they need to be engaged in an action locally or in a vigil. They’re doing actions all over, taking down the war criminals locally. Everyone’s a volunteer. Everyone sees it and says, “Oh my God.”
But the hard thing right now is, how many people are afraid? They’re really afraid. I want people to look at France, Spain, and India and just say, “Where are we? Why are we not in the streets?” All we’re saying is, “Just come to Washington, get in the halls of Congress, and you can make a difference.” And I want to say you can make a difference because they’re not feeling anything. They think we don’t exist. Yes, we’re fretting. Yes, we’re talking to each other about it. But they’ve got to feel it.
We saw when Bibi and Trump spoke at the U.N. What insanity—and nobody got up and walked out. I mean, except with Trump, Cuba and Venezuela. [Laughter] But the hard thing around Bibi was that fewer people got up and walked out than usual. Usually, we have 98% of the halls. This says to us that civil society, which had been built to stop all this, is broken. The laws that were built to stop this insane barbarism are broken. It is up to us. It is up to each one of us, and we’ve just got to take that mantle. People power. We know it is people power. It has always been people power.
So here we are with an opportunity to join together and show up in the halls of Congress. And, by the way, Ben Cohen’s bringing some ice cream, so we’ve got some sweets to tempt you. We’ve got best boys and poets events every night, where we can learn and be together. We’ll have a vigil where congressional members walk between their offices in Congress. So we’ll have a lot for you to do, to be engaged and to say no, because we are going to stop this $1.5 trillion oil bill.
[Host:] Well, you’re calling this the taxpayer uprising. Can you give us the full pitch for anyone who’s watching and wants to participate?
[Jodie Evans:] In the past, when we try to stop this war bill, it gets very confusing. It’s the NDAA, and there are a lot of amendments, and people say, “Oh, like what?” Everybody gets distracted. Nobody knows how to think about it. So this is a taxpayer uprising. All we come and say is, “You cannot use my money to fund war and genocide anymore.” Super clear. No confusion.
Then you talk about what is being stolen from you, what your community needs. We have these stickers that say, “Fund ____ , not war.” I’ve been going around the country for the last three months asking people what they would fund instead of war. What’s amazing is every single person has an answer like that. They’re on it: education, health care, child care. And they tell you a story.
So I say, “Come and tell that story to a member of Congress. Come and tell them what it’s like to have all your money stolen, to destroy the Earth and murder people, and then have to watch it on television and have your heart broken and just not be able to breathe.” I mean, it’s all wrong. You have to go and say it to them.
It’s simple. That’s why I call it a taxpayer uprising. It’s very, very simple. It’s like, “No, we won’t anymore.” There’s a movie called The Uprising where the taxpayers in 1381 said no. I thought, “Well, wow, they didn’t have anything, and we have a lot more. Where are we?” So let’s stand on the shoulders of those who’ve come before us and those—you know, the young people around the world—and say, “Yes, it is time for the people to speak up and stand up, speak out, and say no.”
[Host:] Because we ask, “How does it happen?” And I say, “Because we’re just not scratching hard enough.”
I also want to point people to CodePink.org. The running story has information on the November 10th to 12th taxpayer uprising in Washington, D.C. If you’re in the area and interested, or want to come to D.C. for it, go to CodePink.org and check out how to participate.
With all that said, Jodie, we want to thank you so much for joining us to break all of this down, and for all the wonderful work you’re doing to raise awareness and get people involved. We really appreciate you. Jodie Evans, co-founder.
[Jodie Evans:] Thank you for having me, and thank you for all you do. I love you so much.
[Host:] We love you, Jodie.
[Host 2:] We love you.
[Host:] So sweet. Love the solidarity today. Again, great—like all of our guests, literally all of our guests today. We’re like, “We stand with BreakThrough News.” Love the energy. Love the solidarity.
I want to remind people who are watching: You can also stand with BreakThrough News by going to BreakthroughNews.org, signing the petition to tell the Ways and Means Committee and Jason Smith to back off and stop attacking our First Amendment rights, and donating to BreakThrough News. It’s really important, if you’re able, to please donate, because the whole purpose of this is to try to bleed us dry. Obviously, we have to spend money on constitutional lawyers so they can respond, because you’ve got to do this through lawyers, and it ain’t cheap, guys. So that we can continue doing our excellent reporting that has so angered the powers that be. [Snorts] So we’re doing something right, I guess. If Jason Smith was happy with us, given his politics and who he serves, we would be doing something wrong.
[Host 2:] You know, that’s one way to look at the cup as half full. [Laughter]
[Host:] On that note, we want to thank everybody who’s watching for being a member of BreakThrough News. You were able to watch this program because you’re a member supporting the show. Make sure you’re sharing it with your family and friends, and we will be back on Thursday at noon Eastern Time. See you then.
With less than three weeks until Election Day and Republican approval numbers down, President Donald Trump is taking unorthodox measures to drum up support for the GOP. Last week, Trump sent out $90 payments to over 20 million Americans on Medicare Part B—which covers doctor visits and regular checkups. The money was made available to help seniors "pay for their Medicare Part B premiums," which cost $202 per month.
In a Truth Social post, Trump said the money is coming from "a pointless 'Slush Fund'" known as the Medicare Improvement Fund, which, though bombastic, is an accurate telling of how lawmakers have used the account.
The fund was created in 2008 "to improve program management" of Medicare. However, as a 2023 report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) points out, this fund has really served one purpose far above supporting Medicare: sneaky government accounting.
As the CBO wrote, "No funds have been spent by [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] from either improvement fund since their establishment in 2008." Instead of using the fund to support Medicare programs, Congresses have filled up the fund with money scheduled for use only in the distant future, then siphoned that money away to other legislation. Under CBO accounting rules, canceling or redirecting future spending is a "credit" to the bill's total cost—a helpful trick for legislators who want to couch their initiatives as being affordable. This trick was used to finance nearly $21 billion of the Affordable Care Act and has been used for a scattering of legislation since.
While Trump says this disbursement is needed to help enrollees pay premiums, the timing of the announcement—weeks before the midterms—and Trump's history of using taxpayer money to win over senior citizens make the claim dubious. In the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, for instance, seniors were given a $6,000 tax deduction. Trump has also consistently defended senior-focused entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, which are both facing a funding cliff in the coming years. Trump siphoning off public money to turn out the electorate hasn't been limited to senior citizens either. Last month he promised to hand out $5,000 checks to all Americans—conditional upon Republican victory in the midterms.
Despite grumbling by some Democrats about Trump's decision to empty the Medicare Improvement Fund, it seems unlikely the choice will detract from Medicare's ability to provide services. The bigger concern is that the president is using his office to hand out personally signed checks to voters weeks before an election. Pre-election vote grabbing through irresponsible spending is not unprecedented, but it has rarely been so characteristic.
The fiscal ramifications of Trump's unorthodox spending are also concerning. Medicare is already teetering toward insolvency, and entitlement spending continues to balloon. Neither Congress' playbook of deceptive accounting nor Trump's vote buying will address these problems. Without raising taxes or lowering benefits, these programs cannot continue as they are.
But raising taxes and cutting benefits is no way to win an election. Trump knows this and seems perfectly willing to sacrifice America's fiscal stability for a quick boost in the polls.
The post Trump's $90 Checks to Seniors Look a Lot Like Vote Buying appeared first on Reason Magazine.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has abandoned much of the diplomatic restraint that characterised his dealings with Donald Trump since their confrontation in the Oval Office in February 2025. In an interview on 14 October, the Ukrainian president accused his American counterpart of moving towards Russia and choosing the wrong side of history.
His intervention followed a series of American decisions that have increased pressure on Kyiv while offering Moscow economic and diplomatic advantages. A controversial agreement involving Russian diesel exports, uncertainty surrounding the provision of American intelligence and sudden restrictions on military satellite communications have brought relations between the two countries to their most difficult point since Trump’s return to the White House.
Zelenskyy’s criticism was unusually personal. Questioned about whether he felt betrayed by Washington’s recent decisions, he acknowledged the sense of betrayal but emphasised that Ukraine’s survival could not be treated as a commercial negotiation. He said Ukraine was not selling its country and argued that an American president claiming to act as an intermediary must not favour one of the belligerents.
The shift reflects the apparent exhaustion of a strategy Kyiv has pursued for more than a year: avoid openly challenging Trump, maintain personal contact with the White House and hope that American support can be preserved through diplomatic accommodation. That calculation is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain as Washington’s demands threaten to constrain Ukraine’s military operations without producing corresponding concessions from Russia.
The immediate demonstration of Ukraine’s dependence on American technology came during the night of 13–14 October, when SpaceX imposed restrictions on Starshield, the military-grade version of its Starlink satellite communications service.
According to accounts provided by Ukrainian frontline commanders, the changes disrupted connections to terminals travelling above approximately 160 kilometres per hour, forcing the abandonment of several drone missions. The restrictions affected systems used for reconnaissance, interception and strikes against Russian military targets.
As EU Today reported on 14 October, the disruption exposed a weakness extending beyond individual drone missions. Satellite communications form part of Ukraine’s operational infrastructure, supporting the movement of battlefield information, remote weapons control and communications across areas where conventional networks are vulnerable to Russian electronic warfare.
An interruption imposed remotely by a commercial provider can therefore affect military capabilities without any physical attack on Ukrainian equipment. Decisions taken outside Ukraine’s military command structure can alter the effectiveness of systems already deployed on the battlefield.
Ukraine’s Defence Ministry subsequently opened discussions with American officials, SpaceX and NATO partners while examining alternative communications arrangements.
Later on Wednesday, former Ukrainian defence minister Mykhailo Fedorov announced that Starlink functionality at speeds up to 160 kilometres per hour was being restored. Work was still required to remove the restrictions on Starshield altogether. The partial reversal offered immediate operational relief but did not resolve the underlying dependency.
There is no established evidence that the Trump administration ordered SpaceX to impose the restrictions. Nevertheless, their timing, amid mounting disagreements over Ukraine’s military operations, has reinforced Kyiv’s concerns about relying on communications infrastructure controlled by an American company.
The dispute over satellite access coincides with growing uncertainty about American intelligence cooperation.
Following Russian ballistic missile strikes on Kyiv on 12–13 October, Zelenskyy complained that Ukraine had received no advance warning from its international partners. The attacks damaged residential buildings and energy infrastructure, while Ukraine’s authorities raised concerns about the absence of advance intelligence.
Advance information about Russian missile launches is particularly important when ballistic weapons leave civilians only minutes to reach shelters. Intelligence cooperation also supports Ukrainian air-defence units in assessing threats and preparing interceptions.
Trump denied on 13 October that Washington had stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha likewise confirmed that cooperation continued. The absence of warnings about particular attacks therefore cannot be equated with a complete suspension of American assistance.
Yet the consequences of unreliable warning arrangements remain serious. For Ukraine, the distinction between information withheld, delayed or simply unavailable offers little protection when Russian ballistic missiles reach civilian neighbourhoods without sufficient warning.
The wider concern is that intelligence provision could become another instrument of diplomatic pressure. Accounts of negotiations over Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries have raised the possibility that Washington might use such assistance as leverage. Reports of explicit threats have been disputed, but the controversy has increased uncertainty surrounding a capability central to Ukraine’s defence.
The confrontation has also exposed a contradiction in Washington’s approach to the war.
Trump’s agreement allowing Russian diesel to return to international markets offers Moscow additional export opportunities at a time when Ukrainian attacks have damaged refining capacity and disrupted domestic fuel supplies.
The American administration has justified the arrangement partly through the need to ease fuel prices. Yet the initially announced quantities are modest in relation to international petroleum markets, raising questions about how much immediate relief the measure can realistically provide.
For Putin, its diplomatic significance may be considerably greater. Russia has secured a relaxation of American economic restrictions while Washington simultaneously presses Kyiv to limit attacks on the infrastructure that generates revenue for Moscow’s war economy.
The commercial implications of Washington’s sanctions reversal extend beyond the initial shipment volumes. The Treasury authorisation permits certain transactions involving Russian-origin diesel until April 2027, creating opportunities for international traders and financial intermediaries while leaving the broader sanctions framework formally intact.
Trump’s proposed energy ceasefire has compounded the difficulty. As EU Today examined earlier this week, Kyiv has offered to suspend strikes against Russian energy facilities if Moscow reciprocates. Russian attacks on Ukrainian power infrastructure have nevertheless continued.
An arrangement in which Ukraine stops targeting Russian refineries while Russia retains the ability to strike Ukrainian electricity generation would remove an important source of pressure on Moscow without protecting Ukrainian civilians.
Such an outcome would change the military and economic conditions of the war in Russia’s favour, regardless of how Washington describes its diplomatic objectives.
Zelenskyy’s sharper language also reflects a possible reassessment of where influence over American policy can be exercised.
For much of Trump’s second presidency, Kyiv’s diplomacy has concentrated on preserving a workable relationship with the president himself. That approach assumes that personal engagement can influence White House decisions even when Trump’s broader political instincts favour accommodation with Putin.
The events of October suggest that this strategy has reached its limits.
Ukraine’s alternative is not necessarily an outright confrontation with Washington. Rather, it involves placing greater weight on Congress, the American defence establishment and the institutional relationships that have supported Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.
There is a historical precedent. During Trump’s first presidency, Congress supported military assistance to Ukraine despite differences within the administration over relations with Russia. Under Joe Biden, congressional resistance also demonstrated how domestic American politics could determine the timing and scale of weapons deliveries.
The months-long delay in approving the 2024 military assistance package contributed to severe ammunition shortages at a critical stage of Russia’s offensive operations. Ukraine’s loss of Avdiivka illustrated the danger of making battlefield planning dependent on political negotiations in Washington.
The congressional elections on 3 November 2026 could alter the balance of power. A change in control of either chamber would increase opportunities for oversight, investigations and legislative pressure on the administration, although Congress cannot independently direct every aspect of intelligence sharing or presidential diplomacy.
A less compliant Congress could nevertheless make it politically harder for the White House to restrict Ukrainian assistance without explanation.
For European governments, the dispute carries implications extending well beyond the immediate confrontation between Trump and Zelenskyy.
The transatlantic security relationship has historically depended on the assumption that American military capabilities, intelligence networks and political commitments would remain available to European allies during a major security crisis.
That assumption is increasingly difficult to reconcile with an American administration prepared to link assistance to Ukraine with wider commercial negotiations and domestic political objectives.
The consequences are particularly acute in areas where European capabilities remain insufficient to replace American systems quickly, including satellite intelligence, strategic reconnaissance, missile defence and specialised communications.
Europe can expand weapons production, finance Ukrainian purchases and develop alternatives to American technology. Replacing the full range of capabilities provided by the United States, however, requires investment measured in years rather than months.
The problem will not necessarily disappear when Trump leaves office. His return to power demonstrated that the American foreign-policy consensus which supported European security for decades can be challenged through the electoral process.
Future American administrations may seek to restore traditional alliances, but European governments must now account for the possibility that another election could reverse those commitments.
For Zelenskyy, the immediate calculation is exceptionally difficult. Public criticism risks provoking further retaliation from a president whose administration still controls capabilities essential to Ukraine’s defence. Continued diplomatic restraint, however, has not prevented Washington from offering concessions to Russia or introducing uncertainty into Ukraine’s military planning.
His latest intervention suggests that Kyiv is no longer convinced that avoiding confrontation will preserve American support. The question is whether greater political scrutiny of Washington’s decisions can prevent a further erosion of assistance before Russia turns the resulting military advantages into territorial gains.
President Donald Trump says he has struck a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to import large amounts of diesel fuel into the United States—apparently hoping to lower fuel prices in the weeks before the midterm elections.
The exact terms of that agreement remain somewhat unclear. The White House has not said when the purchases will be made, what prices will be paid, or who will be paying (private companies or taxpayers), though the Treasury announced that it would be issuing a "temporary general license to allow the supply of Russian diesel to the global market." Reporting by The New York Times suggests that investors with ties to the administration are most likely to profit. Because diesel prices are determined by a global market, it's also far from certain that the Russian gas would make much of a dent in American prices.
However, this much is clear: If Trump follows through with this "deal," he will have violated two federal laws recently passed by Congress—one of which he signed just weeks ago.
The more significant of those two laws is the Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act, which passed the House with a 413–9 vote and was unanimously approved by the Senate. President Joe Biden signed that bill into law on April 8, 2022. The law is an outright ban on Russian energy products, including diesel fuel.
The law also lays out the process for lifting the ban on imports. The president must tell Congress that Russia has "reached an agreement to withdraw Russian forces and cease military hostilities in Ukraine" and has recognized "the right of the Ukrainian people to independently and freely choose their own government."
There is also a clear timeline for lifting the ban. Any termination of the ban requires a 90-day waiting period, during which time Congress has the opportunity to block the change.
Obviously, Russia has not withdrawn from Ukraine. Even if it had, the White House has not gone through the necessary process to notify Congress, nor waited the necessary 90 days.
The law does not allow a president to ignore it if fuel prices are high and an election is approaching. It does not allow a president to ignore it if he starts an illegal war in another part of the world that causes fuel prices to spike.
Trump's attempt to disregard that law has drawn a bipartisan rebuke from members of Congress. A group of seven senators—three Democrats and four Republicans—issued a joint statement this week saying that Trump's deal "runs directly counter to" the 2022 law.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R–N.C.), one of the senators who joined that statement, said on Sunday that there is "a legitimate case for saying the president's not following the law."
The second law at play is the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, named for the late senator and passed earlier this year. Among other things, it authorizes the president to levy tariffs of up to 100 percent against countries that buy Russian crude oil and natural gas. The intent is clear: to prevent Russia from being able to finance its war against Ukraine by selling energy commodities onto the global market. Trump signed it into law last month.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have also pointed to that law in the days since Trump announced his deal to buy Russian diesel.
"Now is the time to use those sanctions to squeeze Putin's war machine, not reward a dictator by putting more money in his hands while he continues targeting and killing Ukrainian civilians," Rep. Don Bacon (R–Neb.) posted on X this week. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D–Md.) said it was "outrageous" for Trump to be buying energy from Russia after signing a bill that could be used to punish other countries for doing the same.
The White House could argue that, in this case, Trump is merely violating the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it. Even so, this is blatantly hypocritical.
The hypocrisy runs deep. The Trump administration has spent much of its second term trying to restrict trade and downplay the advice of economists who have warned that doing so would raise prices. Now, Trump is once again seeking imports as a means to ease high prices—as he has done with beef and other products. Perhaps the White House should apply this general principle more broadly, and in circumstances where doing so would not violate federal laws.
Some of the president's allies are now trying to downplay these violations of federal law. Conservative pundit Mollie Hemingway says Trump is merely trying to "put the American people first" by addressing rising gas prices.
Sorry, but no. The president is not allowed to disregard federal laws because he believes it will lower gas prices in swing states.
You can, of course, criticize those laws for being misguided. Trade is generally good, and erecting barriers to the flow of goods tends to be costly. Trump could ask Congress to repeal these laws. He cannot deliberately ignore them.
If the "deal" with Russia comes to fruition, it will further erode what little power Congress retains within America's democratic system. If a president is not bound by the laws Congress has passed, then the legislature might as well not exist at all.
The post Trump's Plan To Buy Russian Diesel Would Violate Federal Law appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Seven US senators from both parties said the Trump administration's decision to authorize Russian diesel imports conflicts with a 2022 law banning Russian energy imports and accused it of failing to consult Congress, in a statement on 11 October.
The dispute comes as the war with Iran drives up US fuel prices, which US President Donald Trump has blamed on Ukraine's strikes on Russian refineries. Trump says Russian supplies will help bring prices down, while lawmakers warn that purchases could provide Moscow with revenue to continue its war against Ukraine.
The senators—Republicans Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis, and John Curtis, and Democrats Jeanne Shaheen, Richard Blumenthal, and Ron Wyden—called on the administration to reverse course, saying the US should not provide Russian President Vladimir Putin with “a financial lifeline.”
The law, signed on 8 April 2022, allows the president to end the import ban only after submitting a certification to Congress. The certification must find that Russia has agreed to pull out its forces and stop the fighting on terms Ukraine's free and independent government accepts, no longer poses an immediate threat of attack to any NATO member, and recognizes Ukrainians' right to pick their own government.
The law also requires consultation with four congressional committees and a report at least 45 days before certification. The termination takes effect 90 days after certification unless a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted into law during that period. The senators allege the administration failed to meet the consultation and reporting requirements. Their statement does not establish whether a certification has been submitted.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control issued General License No. 135 on 9 October, authorizing certain transactions involving Russian-origin diesel that would otherwise be restricted under US sanctions regulations. It runs until 7 April 2027 and cites sanctions regulations, not the 2022 import-ban law.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the deal on Fox News on 11 October, saying the administration would proceed under existing legal authority. He said lawmakers who argued that either the earlier law or the current Lindsey Graham sanctions law prohibited the deal were wrong, and argued the agreement would lower prices, Reuters reported.
Trump said on Truth Social that Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel to US and global markets, followed by 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons after that. He said Russia would deliver another 3 million tons “within a short period of time,” depending on the condition of its diesel refineries. The promised volumes have not been independently verified.
Russia partially lifted its diesel export ban on 10 October, allowing 500,000 tons onto the global market at this stage, the Russian government said, according to state news agency TASS.
Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick plans to introduce the Ronald Reagan Peace Through Strength Act to block Russian oil purchases and use a discharge petition to force a House vote, Axios reported. The procedure can force consideration of a bill if 218 House members sign. Republican Rep. Don Bacon said he would support the bill and called Trump's decision a serious mistake, according to Ukrainska Pravda.
On CBS's Face the Nation on 11 October, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, called the deal “another point of leverage” for Trump to use against Putin. Asked whether the decision violated US law, Barrasso said the president was balancing competing priorities and had to make tough decisions.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote on Telegram on 9 October:
“Allowing Russia to sell petroleum products is an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged.”
Trump also expects Ukraine to stop striking Russian refineries under his proposed energy ceasefire, a White House official told Axios. Zelenskyy said Kyiv would halt such strikes if Moscow did the same.
Login