New York’s newest scheme to tax the rich is an economic disaster



New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) is going all in on taxing the rich.

The governor recently proposed a new pied-à-terre tax as a matter of “fairness.” The tax, which would affect nonresident owners of high-end New York City properties, is a surprising reversal in support of a tax proposal by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D). Hochul had previously rejected the proposal.

While the rhetoric around this tax may resonate politically, the policy itself is a textbook case of how populist tax schemes can undermine investment, distort housing markets, and ultimately leave the city worse off.

Albany’s ingenuity in thinking up new modes of taxation is unparalleled.

"Those who benefit from the city without living in a full-time capacity should contribute to the costs that it takes to run the city: public safety, world-class parks, amenities, the roads, the subway system,” Hochul says in the video.

She continues, "I believe it will protect working New Yorkers and ensure that everyone who has an address in New York City is investing in its continued success."

Hochul may be well attuned to the clamor of politics, but she is tone-deaf to sound economics.

Nonresident owners of New York City real estate already pay taxes — roughly $45,000 to $65,000 on a pied-à-terre with a market value of $5 million — while hardly benefiting from the public services their tax dollars fund. They also pay consumption-based taxes and fees when in New York City.

Nonresidents who own a business in the city also contribute revenue to the city budget.

The pied-à-terre tax has obvious defects in that it is arbitrary, distortionary, and status-dependent. It will likely lead to valuation challenges and maneuvers to keep properties below the $5 million threshold.

Applied only to nonresidents, it would create strong incentives to avoid the tax by altering residency status or otherwise manipulating the property title to obscure de facto property ownership.

For the most expensive real estate, the tax will lower property values — and thus property-tax liability — even though, certainly, “that effect gets distorted when the future tax burden on the property depends on the identity of the purchaser,” notes City Journal.

Taxing these nonresidents into calling New York City home is a poor welcome from the governor. Nevertheless, it suggests that her zeal to tax “New Yorkers,” unlike Mamdani’s, has subsided.

RELATED: Mamdani is moving from one failed promise to another

kena betancur/AFP/Getty Images

New York State already has the least competitive tax structure in the nation and the nation’s highest state and local tax collections per capita. From its “tax benefit recapture” provision to taxing many remote nonresidents under its “convenience of the employer” rule, Albany’s ingenuity in thinking up new modes of taxation is unparalleled.

The latest data shows that New York lost $9.9 billion in adjusted gross income (AGI) between 2022 and 2023 — a net loss of taxable income not readily evident from migration trends. Specifically, Manhattan, while gaining tax filers on net, lost $922 million in AGI.

In 2023, the top 1% (about 93,000 people) contributed roughly one-third of state tax revenue, supporting 20 million residents, according to Empire Center. With the nation’s third most progressive state tax system, New York has paved its own road to insolvency by chasing out high-net-worth taxpayers.

Sobered by plain budget facts, Hochul has begun pleading with wealthy New Yorkers to “go down to Palm Beach and see who you can bring back home.” She has opposed Mamdani’s “tax the rich” surtaxes on high-earning city residents and corporations, but not the city’s fiscal indulgence.

New York City spending has grown by more than 50% over the past decade — roughly 12% to 14% after inflation — even as the city’s population has declined slightly. This year, New York City’s spending is about $10 billion higher than that of the entire state of Florida.

Gov. Hochul misunderstands the core problem underlying the city’s fiscal plight. Rhetoric alone will not convince current and former wealthy New Yorkers that the state’s political leadership recognizes they have paid their fair share after all.

'Bye': Seattle mayor laughs off wealth exodus from her flagging, crime-ridden city



Katie Wilson, the 43-year-old leftist blogger elected mayor of Seattle last year, apparently finds it amusing that deep-pocketed residents and businesses are fleeing her crime-ridden city.

During a recent event at Seattle University, lecturer Joni Balter raised the matter of downtown Seattle's apparent inability to "grow job these days," noting that "the city has lost 25,000 jobs over four years, and the thinking is — the data folks say — that if you extend that out five years, it could be as high as 37,000 jobs."

'We still have the very regressive tax system.'

According to a recent report from the the Downtown Seattle Association, the Emerald City's downtown has seen a 14% decrease in brick-and-mortar retail jobs since 2010 and lost an estimated 13,000 jobs just last year, amounting to the biggest decrease in jobs since the pandemic.

The report noted further that Seattle's downtown office vacancy remained at a post-pandemic high of 25%; the central business district experienced an office vacancy rate of 32% last year, nearly double the previous high point during the Great Recession in 2009; and the combined taxable value of the 20 highest-valued properties in Seattle's downtown has declined from over $10 billion in 2021 to roughly $5.1 billion this year.

When asked about her plan to "turn that around," Wilson — who appeared on stage alongside fellow radical Girmay Zahilay, the newly elected King County executive — attributed Seattle's exodus of jobs and businesses to a number of factors including potential workers' apparent inability to afford living in or near the downtown; homelessness and public safety issues; and the "tax environment."

While apparently interested in tackling the affordability, homelessness, and public safety issues, Wilson signaled that her city's crushing taxes won't soon be changed.

RELATED: Mamdani finally admits what people knew about his candidacy from the start

David Ryder/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Wilson, who co-founded the Transit Riders Union in 2011 and endeavored in years past to "Trump-proof Seattle," was later asked about the "taxing climate" and whether progressive taxes were an "easy and promising solution."

After noting that she found it "very exciting" that state Democrats passed a 9.9% tax on annual taxable income exceeding $1 million for individuals or households and recalling her efforts to push similar taxes in Seattle, Wilson said that claims that wealthy residents will flee the state are "super overblown."

But to those beleaguered residents who have chosen to leave or might do so in the near future, the mayor waved, said, "Bye," and laughed in concert with fellow travelers in the sparsely populated audience.

"In general, we still have the very regressive tax system, and my office is doing a lot of work to look at what our options are in terms of progressive taxation," continued Wilson. "We do have more flexibility at the city than the county, in terms of our taxing authority."

Despite Wilson's casual dismissal, high taxes in Seattle appear to be chasing jobs to cities like Bellevue.

Jon Scholes, president of the Downtown Seattle Association, suggested that Amazon's decision to relocate thousands of employees from Seattle to other King County locations was the direct result of Seattle's overwhelming tax burden, reported the Center Square. Starbucks, which is headquartered in Seattle, also appears to be angling for greener pastures.

Among the taxes the city has implemented is the Social Housing Tax, a 5% levy on employee compensation exceeding $1 million, and the JumpStart Payroll Expense Tax, which the city slapped on companies with employees making more than $150,000 annually.

"What we need is more businesses in Seattle paying taxes," said Scholes. "That's how we strengthen the tax base."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Zohran Mamdani Humiliated as He’s Reduced to Begging for Money
play icon

Zohran Mamdani Humiliated as He’s Reduced to Begging for Money

Mamdani finally admits what people knew about his candidacy from the start



Voters in New York City just got a reality check after the fountain of socialist campaign promises from Mayor Zohran Mamdani has apparently run dry in just a few months.

Standing with New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin, Mayor Mamdani was forced to announce some unexpected hang-ups that will likely interfere with delivering on many of his campaign promises of free stuff.

'Everyone saw this coming ... every single person.'

"New York City faces a budget crisis of a historic magnitude," Mamdani said in his speech. "We inherited a deficit larger than any since the great recession. Years of mismanagement and chronic underbudgeting, alongside a structural imbalance between what New York City sends to the state and what we receive in return, have taken a toll."

Mamdani admitted that savings alone cannot fix this crisis, saying that "we need new revenue" and a "structural reset in our relationship with the state" to close the gap.

RELATED: Mamdani walks back popular progressive campaign promise to pedestrians

Angelina Katsanis/Bloomberg/Getty Images

"Together, we are extending the executive budget deadline from this coming Friday until May 12 because a crisis of this scale cannot be solved without state action. ... Speaker Menin and I have already identified meaningful savings, and we will continue that work carefully, deliberately, and without cutting the services that New Yorkers rely on," Mamdani continued. "But we cannot do it alone. That is why we are standing together this morning: to underscore what is at stake and to call on Albany to deliver additional revenue."

Matt Van Swol said what everyone was thinking when they heard the news: "Everyone saw this coming ... every single person. Money has to come from somewhere and businesses and the wealthy will always go to where taxation is lower and incentives are higher."

"If you want more income, make your state more friendly to those groups, don't demonize them," he added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Mamdani’s ‘tax the rich’ stunt backfires as billionaires push back



New York City Democrat mayor Zohran Mamdani’s latest political stunt has wealthy investors signaling they may rethink their commitments to the once-flourishing city — just as BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales predicted.

“They’re not going to just sit there and take it. They’re going to do something about that. What do you think these millionaires that don’t even live there full-time are going to do?” she asks, showing a video Mamdani released revealing his plans for the rich.

“When I ran for mayor, I said I was going to tax the rich. Well, today, we’re taxing the rich. I’m thrilled to announce we’ve secured a pied-a-terre tax, the first in New York’s history. This is an annual fee on luxury properties worth more than $5 million whose owners do not live full-time in the city,” Mamdani explained in a promotional video.


And they’re not happy — especially billionaire Ken Griffin.

Mamdani “doxxed” the CEO of Citadel in his video, pointing out the location of his apartment.

“I don’t think this should come as a shock to anyone. He wasn’t very happy about being name-checked in this little, you know, ad. And so, Ken Griffin now is pushing back after Mamdani featured ... his $238 million penthouse in the tax-the-rich video,” Gonzales explains, pointing out that in a letter to Citadel’s employees, the COO subtly hinted at a possible re-evaluation of its New York City investment.

“Because you see, as the story goes, he was planning on investing $6 billion into a development project. And now he’s like, ‘You know what? I don’t know if I want to do that. I don’t know if I want to continue investing my money in a city that just wants to tax me into oblivion,’” she continues.

“Who could have possibly predicted that that would be the final result of Zohran Mamdani just trying to get the rich to pay for all of his free stuff, which as we know isn’t even free? So, things are not going well on that front,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

White House requests $1.5 trillion for Pentagon's 2027 budget. Here's what the administration has in mind.



The Trump White House has proposed that Congress increase the Pentagon's budget by nearly 44% compared to last year to roughly $1.5 trillion and reduce non-defense spending by $73 billion, or 10%.

"This is a $441 billion or 44-percent increase from the 2026 enacted level in combination with the $151.5 billion in mandatory funding provided through the Working Families Tax Cut Act," the budget request says.

While nearly $1.2 trillion of the total would reportedly come from the regular appropriations process, $350 billion would alternatively come through a budget reconciliation bill.

'I'm very wary.'

This request is in addition to the $200 billion supplemental package requested by the Department of War to sustain the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran.

According to the White House, the requested sum — which would reportedly raise U.S. military spending to its highest level in modern history — would help restore "the readiness and lethality of the force by ensuring America's warfighters are trained, equipped, and medically ready to fight and win."

In addition to funding a pay raise of 7% for all Pentagon military personnel ranked E-5 and below, of 6% for E-6 to O-3, and of 5% for O-4 and above, the requested budget would help:

  • Fund the "next-generation missile defense shield" outlined in President Donald Trump's executive order titled "The Iron Dome for America";
  • "Secure and defend America's vital national and economic security interests in, from, and to space";
  • Fund the procurement of 18 battle force ships and 16 non-battle force ships;
  • Fund the procurement of 12 unspecified "critical" munitions at a time of dwindling stores of Patriot missiles, Standard Missile-3s, and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors;
  • "Fix longstanding shortfalls in the National Defense Stockpile" of critical minerals;
  • Secure 85 F-35 jets;
  • Prioritize the development and production of the F-47, a sixth-generation combat aircraft Boeing won the contract to develop last year;
  • Boost America's drone manufacturing base; and
  • Scale the Armed Forces' "AI ecosystem," among other initiatives.

The White House further proposed that Congress continue to "eliminate millions of wasteful and egregious spending related to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and other 'woke' policies" at the Pentagon.

RELATED: America First means taking care of our own, not another war

Will Oliver/EPA/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Numerous Democratic lawmakers rushed to criticize the White House's budget request.

Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.), for instance, stated, "Trump wants $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon while eliminating the programs that help you pay your heating bill, fund your child's education, and keep your family healthy. This isn't a budget. It's a betrayal of the American people."

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said that "the only responsible thing to do with a budget this morally bankrupt is to toss it in the trash."

There may also be some resistance on the right.

"I'm very wary of voting for excessive spending in defense," said Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett (R), Politico reported.

'It is the most robust increase in defense spending in many years.'

Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said in an op-ed on Friday that while he supports maintaining America's stockpiles, strengthening the defense industrial base, and maintaining "the capabilities needed to deter China," he "cannot support funding for further military operations without a formal declaration of war."

The budget request has, however, found a number of staunch supporters in the GOP.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement, "This funding will ensure our military remains the most advanced in the world, supporting an unparalleled force capable of defending our interests in the 21st century."

"America is facing the most dangerous global environment since World War II. Growing threats from adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Islamic radicals, and narco-terrorists require decisive action and renewed urgency to reinvest in our defenses," the duo continued. "This bold commitment provides the resources needed to rebuild American military capability and confront those challenges head-on."

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.) celebrated the budget request, stating, "It is the most robust increase in defense spending in many years, and it is more than justified by the threats we face throughout the world."

Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said in a note to Congress appended to the budget request, "President Trump promised to reinvest in America's national security infrastructure, to make sure our Nation is safe in a dangerous world. The 2027 Budget upholds this promise and would ensure that the United States continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

New York Times makes big admission about Trump's tariffs



President Donald Trump began in April to radically transform how trade is conducted internationally, announcing tariffs on friendly and adversarial nations alike in an effort to settle scores and to exact concessions favorable to the United States, such as those made by Japan and the European Union last month.

"Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years, but it is not going to happen anymore. It's not going to happen," Trump said at the "Liberation Day" ceremony where he announced a sweeping list of tariffs. "This will be, indeed, the golden age of America. It's coming back. And we're going to come back very strongly."

This tariff-driven upheaval has rankled establishmentarians at home and abroad — some of whom have launched legal challenges, issued condemnations, and threatened retaliation. Of course, the media has also worked feverishly to paint the tariffs as reckless and as more grease down the slope to economic ruin.

'Revenue and reciprocity are the twin benefits of the Trump tariffs.'

Nearly four months after the New York Times characterized Trump's approach as a "burn-it-down-first, figure-out-the-consequences-later recklessness," the paper admitted on Sunday that the tariffs are already netting a great deal of money for the government.

The Times' Washington, D.C., tax policy reporter Andrew Duehren confirmed on Sunday that Trump's recent assertion that "Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!" was correct.

RELATED: Main Street's silent plea: Exempt us from the next tariffs

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

"Even before the latest tariffs kick in, revenue from taxes collected on imported goods has grown dramatically so far this year," Duehren wrote. "Customs duties, along with some excise taxes, generated $152 billion through July, roughly double the $78 billion netted over the same time period last fiscal year, according to Treasury data."

Citing data from the U.S. Treasury Department, the Times indicated that tariffs brought in over $29 billion in the month of July alone.

Analysts reportedly estimated that the tariffs could be worth well over $2 trillion in additional revenue if left untouched over the next 10 years.

"Tariffs are not going to be a huge source of revenue, couple trillion over a decade, but not trivial at all," Christopher Whalen, chairman of Whalen Global Advisors, told Blaze News in a statement. "But the tariffs are appropriate and are a way to get the world to give at least equal treatment to American goods. Revenue and reciprocity are the twin benefits of the Trump tariffs."

'I do not think this is a true source of revenue, only a substitution and reordering of taxes.'

While the tariffs are bringing in boatloads of cash, some critics have noted that Americans are the ones ultimately paying the price — something that might be more tolerable if Trump's idea to scrap American income tax and lean instead on tariffs as the main source of federal revenue were implemented.

Economic expert and Blaze Media contributor Carol Roth said in a statement to Blaze News, "When you think of the word 'revenue' when it comes to the federal government, you should think taxes because that's the primary source of government revenue. When it comes to revenue from tariffs, it is no different."

"The majority of the tariff burden is coming not from foreign exporters, but rather from U.S. consumers and U.S. businesses," Roth said, alluding to a Goldman Sachs analysis that estimated foreign exporters were only absorbing 20% of the higher costs from tariffs.

RELATED: Tariffs vs. free trade: Which is BETTER for the American auto industry?

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Goldman Sachs economists reportedly indicated that eventually, 70% of the direct cost of tariffs would be kicked to consumers through higher prices.

"This means tariffs are mostly revenue that is moving from one pocket to the other, so to speak, as businesses and consumers that pay tariffs then have less money to contribute otherwise to the economy, impacting other tax or government 'revenue' collection," Roth continued. "Unless we fundamentally reorder how taxes are paid (as well as spending) to something that is focused on a consumption tax (which I personally do not think is a good idea given how our economy functions today), I do not think this is a true source of revenue, only a substitution and reordering of taxes."

'I think this is addictive.'

"We all know that making the [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017] tax cuts permanent through the [One Big Beautiful Bill Act] was important to the economy, so why would anyone think that adding in the equivalent of more taxes through tariffs is a good idea?" Roth added. "Also, given that cost of living remains a top issue for Americans, adding costs — even if it is only in certain areas of the economy — is in conflict with the administration's agenda."

Regardless of where the money is coming from, there are concerns that the U.S. government might become overly reliant on tariffs as a revenue stream.

"I think this is addictive," Joao Gomes, a finance and economics professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, told the Times. "I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are."

The national deficit is presently $1.33 trillion, and the national debt is $36.91 trillion.

Despite Democratic complaints over the tariffs, Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab, suggested that there may be hesitance among both Republicans and Democrats to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a greater federal debt load.

"Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place," Tedeschi told the Times.

Rather than scrap the tariffs, Democrats are apparently thinking about ways in which they can blow the money.

Democratic strategist Tyson Brody noted, "The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'"

Some Republicans also have a mind to redistribute the funds.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced legislation last week that would send tariff rebate checks to Americans. The amount of the rebate would be at least $600 per adult and dependent child, or more if tariff revenue exceeds current projections for 2025.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Jetsetting Elites Can Now Make Tax-Exempt Directly To Their Favorite Disruptive Eco-Activists

Radical climate protest group, Climate Defiance, announced on Tuesday that it is now classified as a 501(c)3 organization by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), making donations to the eco-activist group tax-exempt. Michael Greenberg, founder of Climate Defiance, said that this status will help the group “level up and reach the max level of power and […]

'51st state': Trump teases annexation again after Canada quickly caves on major tax



President Donald Trump threatened U.S.-Canada trade talks on Friday over the northern nation's digital services tax, which required foreign and domestic large businesses such as Netflix, Amazon.com's Prime Video, and Spotify to pay a levy of 3% on revenue earned from offering online services to users in Canada.

"We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products, has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country," Trump noted in a Truth Social post.

"They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also," continued the president. "Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately."

'Canada is a very tough country to deal with.'

Canada — the top buyer of American goods, importing $349.4 billion last year, and 75.9% of whose total exports went to the U.S. — made abundantly clear that it wasn't too attached to the tax, which the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated would increase federal government revenues by over $5.2 billion over five years.

Within hours of Trump's post, the Department of Finance Canada announced that it was rescinding the digital services tax to advance broader trade negotiations with the United States.

Canadian Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne noted that "rescinding the DST will allow the negotiations to make vital progress and reinforce our work to create jobs and build prosperity for all Canadians."

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick thanked Canada on Monday for removing the tax, noting that it was "intended to stifle American innovation and would have been a deal breaker for any trade deal with America."

RELATED: Canada's solution to reliance on US? Increasing commitments in Europe

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

"In our negotiations on a new economic and security relationship between Canada and the United States, Canada's new government will always be guided by the overall contribution of any possible agreement to the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses," said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. "Today’s announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month’s G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis."

The Canadian Liberal Party under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first promised the tax ahead of the 2019 federal election, saying it would "make sure that multinational tech giants pay corporate tax on the revenue they generate in Canada," even though critics indicated that Canadian consumers would end up paying the taxes.

The Digital Services Tax Act went into force on June 28, 2024, prompting condemnation stateside as well as an official complaint under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement from former U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai.

John Dickerman, vice president of the Washington, D.C.-based Business Council of Canada, suggested to Canadian state media days after Trump's re-election that the tax was likely doomed.

"The first Trump administration ... was very clear on digital services taxes. They believed that digital services taxes were a very clear indication that a country was specifically targeting the U.S. and targeting U.S. companies. It will be a 'with us and against us' scenario," said Dickerman. "I think there will be very little room for negotiation on DST."

Trump leaned on Canada to axe the tax just in the nick of time. The first payments were due on Monday and retroactive to 2022, meaning a number of American corporations were on the hook for billions of dollars.

The Canadian government indicated that Carney and Trump have agreed to resume negotiations "with a view towards agreeing on a deal by July 21, 2025."

"Canada is a very tough country to deal with, I will say that," Trump told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures." "Hopefully we'll be fine with Canada. I love Canada. Frankly, Canada should be the 51st state."

Blaze News has reached out to the White House for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump admin takes steps to prevent illegal aliens from leeching off Social Security, welfare programs



President Donald Trump signed a memo Tuesday directing his administration to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving taxpayer funds from Social Security Act programs, including Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

The initiative appears to be aimed both at eliminating the monetary incentive for foreign nationals to steal into the homeland and at pressuring the noncitizen net-takers already here to either wean off the dole or hit the road.

The memo directs the Social Security Administration to: expand its fraud prosecutor programs to at least 50 U.S. attorney offices; establish a Medicare and Medicaid fraud prosecution program in 15 U.S. attorney offices; investigate earning reports of individuals supposedly 100 years or older with mismatched records; consider reinstating its civil monetary penalty program; and reinforce program integrity measures so only those foreign nationals who satisfy all eligibility requirements can receive benefits.

'This literally blew us away.'

In a fact sheet detailing the memo, the White House echoed Elon Musk's recent revelation that over two million illegal aliens were apparently assigned Social Security numbers in fiscal year 2024 alone.

Venture capitalist Antonio Gracias, who has been working with the Department of Government Efficiency in scrutinizing the SSA, noted at the Wisconsin town hall where Musk highlighted the provision of Social Security numbers to illegal aliens, "This literally blew us away," reported NewsNation.

"We went there to find fraud, and we found this by accident," said Gracias.

Migrants authorized to legally work in the U.S. are eligible to apply for a Social Security Card — but in order to receive Supplemental Security Income, the Department of Homeland Security must class them as a migrant legally admitted and conferred permanent residency, a migrant granted conditional entry or asylum, or a migrant paroled into the country or admitted as a refugee.

Gracias suggested that in recent years, migrants were given SSNs automatically through the mail without an interview or showing identification.

The White House fact sheet notes that the multitudes of illegal aliens who entered the U.S. under the Biden administration are "siphoning dollars and essential services from American citizens while state and local budgets grow increasingly strained."

The Center for Immigration Studies revealed in a December 2023 report that 54% of households headed by immigrants, including naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal aliens, used one or more major welfare program.

'These taxpayer-funded benefits should be only for eligible taxpayers.'

The study indicated that 48% of "illegal-headed households" used food welfare programs; 39% relied on Medicaid; 18% relied on cash welfare; and 4% relied on housing programs.

The House Committee on Homeland Security noted in a November 2023 report that the cost in federal welfare for every one million parolees released into the U.S. under the Biden administration was likely in the neighborhood of $3 billion annually.

As of 2022, American taxpayers were shelling out at least $182 billion annually to provide services and benefits to illegal aliens and their dependents, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform report cited in the White House's fact sheet. FAIR indicated that net cost is $150.7 billion if the estimated $31 billion taxes illegal aliens cough up are factored.

The White House noted that the $182 billion figure includes $66.4 billion in federal expenses and $115.6 billion in state and local expenses. Again citing FAIR estimates, the White House noted that "a million illegal aliens hold stolen identifications or fraudulent SSNs" — abuse that has long been widespread.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday, "These taxpayer-funded benefits should be only for eligible taxpayers."

"President Biden should think about what he did in his last term, which is allow tens of millions of illegal people into our country, many of whom were fraudulently receiving these benefits."

The Social Security Administration indicated that Trump's memorandum "reinforces SSA's commitment to safeguarding taxpayer dollars and ensuring the integrity of the programs it administers."

"The Social Security Administration is dedicated to protecting the vital benefits that American workers have earned on behalf of themselves and their families," said acting SSA Commissioner Leland Dudek. "We are committed to working diligently to implement the President's memorandum and to ensure that benefits are paid only to those who should receive them."

Martin O'Malley, the SSA commissioner during Joe Biden's final year in office, told Government Executive, "This is all on brand for them, because they enjoy inflicting cruelty on people in the name of going after immigrants."

"If they go forward with this representative payee plan, they are talking about interrupting benefits that are legally owed to Americans and American-born children here in the U.S.," said O'Malley. "Just because someone might not have proof of their legal status on an SSA record doesn’t mean they aren’t the representative payee for a U.S. citizen, whether it be their husband with a disability, a mother-in-law, an American-born child."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!