benefits

In 2025, the maximum monthly Social Security benefit is $5,108 per month. It’s not 100% clear exactly how large the maximum monthly benefit will be in 2026, but based on current estimates of benefit increases, it could be somewhere around $5,245.97.

That’s a huge benefit amount to collect each month. So, how can you earn the maximum benefit in 2026? Here’s what you would need to do.

Image source: Getty Images.

A big income is needed to max out your 2026 benefit

If you want to work toward earning the maximum Social Security benefit in 2026, the first thing that you need to do is to earn a pretty large salary.

Social Security benefits are based on average wages in the 35 years you earn the most. There is a cap on the amount of wages that count in this benefits formula, though. Specifically, income up to the “wage base limit” is subject to Social Security tax and is counted in the benefits formula, and income above that threshold is not.

If you want the maximum benefit, you need a 35-year career history of earning an income equal to or above the wage base limit. In 2025, that limit was $176,100. It’s likely to increase to $183,600 in 2026 as the amount goes up most years due to the effects of inflation.

You’ll need to make sure your salary is equal to or above these numbers to be on track to get the maximum benefit.

You’ll need to put off your Social Security claim

There’s also another thing you’ll have to do if you want the maximum possible Social Security benefit to supplement the savings in your retirement plans. Specifically, you are going to need to make plans to wait until you are 70 to claim your Social Security benefits.

Waiting until 70 means waiting until after your full retirement age, and means waiting a full eight years to claim benefits after first becoming eligible for them at 62. You have to wait this long because earning the wage base limit or higher for 35 years only puts you on track for the highest possible standard Social Security benefit.

You’ll have to raise that standard benefit as much as possible by maxing out your delayed retirement credits if you want the overall maximum benefit. These delayed retirement credits increase your standard Social Security checks until age 70, when you can’t earn any more credits.

If you follow these two steps, then you will be on track for the maximum monthly Social Security benefit in 2026. You’ll have a good amount of extra money coming from Social Security to add to the distributions from your 401(k) and build the secure retirement you deserve.

Unfortunately, many people don’t do either of these things, much less both of them. Earning the maximum benefit is really hard, as you have to be among the country’s top earners for a long time and not need your retirement benefits until pretty late in life.

If you can’t do this, you’ll need to be realistic about what Social Security benefits you’ll get when you do your retirement planning. The reality is that Social Security replaces only around 40% of pre-retirement income, and the rest needs to come from accounts like your 401(k) and IRA. So, while you can work toward maxing out your benefit, also be sure you are saving plenty of money in case you fall short.

IT was perhaps the most famous poster in election history. “Labour Isn’t Working,” proclaimed its simple slogan above a photo of a long, snaking queue outside an unemployment office. 

The image helped Margaret Thatcher’s Tories to win a decisive victory in 1979. 

4

4

That poster could be revived today as the beleaguered Labour Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, seems to be trapped in a kind of doom loop created by his party’s epic mismanagement of the economy. 

Growth is anaemic, the tax burden colossal. Just like in the late 70s, Britain is gripped by rising debt, inflation and unemployment, as well as increasing militancy in the public sector workforce, where recent generous pay settlements have fuelled a mood of greedy irresponsibility. 

Only yesterday the distinguished business leader Lord Stuart Rose, the former head of Marks & Spencer, warned that Starmer and his bumbling Chancellor Rachel Reeves had dragged Britain “to the edge of crisis.” 

In a bleak analysis, Lord Rose argued that because “there is no growth in the economy,” neither wealth nor jobs are being created. 

The parallel with the 1970s is at its most stark in the hostility to hard work. Fifty years ago Britain became known as “the sick man of Europe” because of its addiction to strikes, with an astonishing 29million working days lost in 1979 alone. 

Modern Britain has yet to plumb those depths, though the pig-headed unions are trying to go in that direction, as shown by the current miserable strike on the London Underground, which has paralysed the capital this week. 

What makes this strike so ridiculous is that the Tube drivers are extremely well-paid, typically earning around £72,000-a-year, and enjoy excellent job security, pensions, hours and holidays. Yet they act like they are oppressed members of the proletariat. 

The same is true of the resident doctors who went on strike last month in support of an outrageous 35 per cent pay claim. 

These grotesque demands are part of a wider culture of self-serving entitlement that is destroying Britain’s work ethic, reducing productivity and weakening the dynamism of business. 

That destructive spirit can be seen in the recent surge of sick leave in the national workforce, a phenomenon caused not by harsher conditions but by more indulgent management, and the fashion for treating normal emotions as mental health problems. 

Mental-health crisis 

Yesterday a study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development revealed that employees are now taking an average of nearly two weeks off sick every year. 

Only two years ago absenteeism stood at an average of 7.8 days a year. Now that figure has risen to 9.4 days a year, with the mental-health crisis the key driving force. 

All too predictably, the record of the public sector is much worse than the private sector. That is not because work on the state payroll is tougher. Just the opposite is true. 

The heavily unionised culture of public employment, with its emphasis on workplace rights and victimhood, promotes weak management and a lack of accountability. 

The rise in absenteeism is mirrored by the growth in welfare dependency where ever increasing numbers of people think that the state owes them a living. Social security is no longer just a temporary safety net but has become a comfortable lifestyle choice. 

There are now 6.5million adults of working age who are claiming out-of-work benefits, while some forms of incapacity payments have become a sort of subsidy for early retirement. 

As Lord Rose puts it, “We have arrived in a situation in Britain today where there is effectively no obligation to work, absolutely none.” 

In a recent newspaper interview, one claimant called Clare Russell gave an insight into the mentality of some of the worst freeloaders. 

Labour likes to boast that it is the party of ‘working people’. Now it should live up to that description. 

Ten years ago she gave up work at the age of 46 and since then has lived off the disability benefits she receives for a bad back, as well as a substantial rental income from some property, plus a carer’s allowance to look after her mother who lives 30 miles away. 

In her sickening interview, she said that she has “a lovely life, thanks to the great British taxpayer.” 

Just to heighten the outrage she added, “when I am at the gym, I watch young people scuttle past the window on the treadmill of work and I must admit to feeling smug.” 

The disappearance of the work ethic is neither morally defensible nor financially affordable. 

The disability benefits bill is expected to reach £100billion by 2030 while the overall cost of welfare is forecast to go up from £210billion a decade ago to £380billion by 2030. 

The welfare leviathan is tracking us ever deeper into debt and towards national bankruptcy. 

In the depths of its current political crisis, France — which has an even more lavish benefits system than Britain — shows what can happen when the cost of welfare spirals out of control. 

We were the nation of the industrial revolution. We must revive that kind of drive and determination. This should be an absolute priority for the new Labour cabinet. 

Reform of welfare and the workplace is not an option, it is a necessity. 

Labour likes to boast that it is the party of “working people”. Now it should live up to that description. 

4

4

THE EXACT amount of money each pensioner will get as their Winter Fuel Payment this year has been confirmed by the Department for Work and Pensions.

More than nine million people are set to receive the payment later this year.

4

4

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) confirmed eligible people born before September 22, 1959 will automatically receive the funds.

It comes after the previous £300 payment was axed for millions of pensioners last winter and only those on certain benefits qualified.

The move triggered a massive backlash for Labour as some 10 million pensioners lost their winter fuel allowance in the benefit cut.

It saved the Treasury just £1.4 billion but caused a massive public outcry – and the government was forced to perform a half baked U-turn.

The PM cracked under pressure after a voter backlash.

It’s now been revealed that this year’s payment will be between £100 and £300, to help cover the cost of higher heating bills this winter.

The money will become available to most eligible pensioners in November or December.

The amount is determined by both age and household circumstances of a claimant over the qualifying period, which is the week of September 15 to 21.

Where you were born is also a contributing factor.

Letters can be expected for those who qualify for it in England and Wales in October or November.

The letter will provide details on how much money you will be offered, as well as which bank account the payment will go into – which is usually the same as where you receive State Pensions or other benefits.

DWP guidance states: “You’ll get a letter in October or November telling you how much Winter Fuel Payment you’ll get, if you’re eligible.

“If you do not get a letter but think you’re eligible, check if you need to make a claim.”

People in Scotland will not get Winter Fuel Payment as the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment has replaced it.

This scheme follows similar eligibility criteria as outlined by the DWP, but will be issued automatically by Social Security Scotland from the end of November.

The GOV.UK website provides further guidance on the scheme and how to be a claim.

It also warns people to be wary about scammers who may send out trick messages that provide a link to click on and make a claim.

4

These are not official DWP messages and should be deleted.

So those eligible for the Winter Fuel Payment are people living in England and Wales born before September 22, 1959.

You will not be eligible if:

• you live outside England and Wales
• you were in hospital getting free treatment for the whole of the week of September 15-21, 2025 and the year before
• you need permission to enter the UK and granted leave says you cannot claim public funds
• you were in prison for the whole of the week of September 15-21

It is possible for people living in a care home to get the Winter Fuel Payment.

However, there are two factors that if combined mean you will not be eligible.

This is if you are on Universal Credit, Pension Credit, Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Alloance (JSA) or income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), whilst having lived in a care home during since June 23, 2025 or earlier.

If you live alone, or none of the people you live with are eligible for Winter Fuel Payment:

• you will get £200, if you were born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959
• you will get £300, if you were born before September 22, 1945

If you live with someone else who is eligible for the Winter Fuel Payment:

• £100 if you and the person you live with were both born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959
• £100 if you were born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959 but the person you live with was born before September 22, 1945
• £200 if you were born before September 22, 1945 but the person you live with was born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959
• £150 if you and the person you live with were born before September 22, 1945

Your payment will also be different if you are receiving other benefits payments.

• £200 if you were born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959
• £300 if you were born before September 22, 1945

If you and a partner jointly claim any benefits, one of you will get a Winter Fuel Payment of:

• £200 if both of you were born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959
• £300 if one or both of you were born before September 22, 1945

The money will be paid into the bank account where benefits are usually paid into.

Care home residents that are eligible will get:

• £100 if you were born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959
• £150 if you were born before September 22, 1945

Those with an income of more than £35,000 will have all of their Winter Fuel Payments returned by the HMRC, either through PAYE or submitting a Self Assessment tax return.

The DWP has said: “If you do not get a letter or the money has not been paid into your account by 28 January 2026, contact the Winter Fuel Payment Centre.”

It is also possible to opt out of the Winter Fuel Payment, either by completing an opt out form by September 14, or calling the helpline before 6pm on September 12.

4

Sept. 3 (UPI) — The Justice Department is suing Illinois over state laws that grant in-state tuition benefits and financial assistance to migrants, accusing the Prairie State of discriminating against Americans.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, is the latest from the Trump administration targeting laws aiding migrants in receiving tuition benefits, and comes as President Donald Trump‘s feud with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker continues to deepen.

“Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

“This Department of Justice has already filed multiple lawsuits to prevent U.S. students from being treated like second-class citizens — Illinois now joins the list of states where we are relentlessly fighting to vindicate federal law.”

According to the lawsuit, Illinois laws discriminate against out-of-state Americans who are not eligible for the tuition benefits being offered to some undocumented students in the state.

The lawsuit targets two Illinois laws: the Illinois Public Act of 2003, which permits certain undocumented students with residency for purposes of receiving in-state tuition benefits; the Illinois DREAM Act of 2011, which provides scholarships, college saving plans and prepaid tuition programs to undocumented students, paid through private donations.

Federal prosecutors allege that they violate a federal law, enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, that states an undocumented person in the United States “shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state … for any postsecondary education benefit” unless a U.S. citizen is also eligible for the benefit.

“This court should put an end to this discrimination against Americans that is a blatant and ongoing violation of federal law,” the prosecutors said in the lawsuit.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has led a renewed crackdown on immigration, seeking to conduct mass deportations and limiting the protections of migrants already in the country.

This is the fifth lawsuit since June challenging state laws offering in-state tuition or tuition benefits to migrants that are unavailable to out-of-state Americans.

The lawsuits follow President Donald Trump signing several immigration-related executive orders including “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” which directed the attorney general to identify laws “favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens,” including “State laws that provide in-State higher education tuition to aliens but not to out-of-State American citizens.”

Early last month, the Justice Department sued Oklahoma for providing eligible undocumented migrants with in-state tuition benefits, with similar suits filed against Kentucky and Minnesota.

In June, prosecutors filed a suit in Texas, with the Republican-led state siding with the federal government, and the two reached an agreement to halt the Lone Star State’s law on giving undocumented migrants in-state tuition benefits.

The lawsuit was also announced on the same day that the Republican president vowed to send National Guard troops to Chicago in a crime crackdown, as he had done to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

Pritzker, a Democrat and a staunch Trump critic, responded by saying there is no emergency warranting the deployment of troops in the city.

“These efforts are not about fighting crime or making communities safer,” Pritzker said in a statement.

“This is about Donald Trump testing his power and producing political drama to cover up his own corruption.”

HOUSEHOLDS on Universal Credit should be aware of one-off payments worth hundreds that could help cover emergency costs.

A budgeting advance is a type of payment given to those claiming the benefit to help with paying for items such as a broken cooker.

1

The advance is interest free, so you only have to pay back what you borrow. Usually you will be expected to pay the money back within 24 months.

You can apply for a budgeting advance to cover things like:

• A one-off item – for example, replacing a broken fridge
• Work-related expenses – for example, buying uniforms or tools
• Unexpected expenses
• Repairs to your home
• Travel expenses
• Maternity expenses
• Funeral expenses
• Moving costs or rent deposit
• Essential items, like clothes

How much you can get depends on a number of factors, with the lowest you can borrow £100. 

Meanwhile, single people could get up to £348, while those who live with a partner could get up to £464.

The highest reward is only eligible for people with children and that is worth £812.

But it is not always guaranteed that you will be accepted for the payment.

Firstly, you must have been claiming Universal Credit, Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance or State Pension Credit for six months or more.

There is an exception if you need the money to help start a new job or stay in employment.

You will not be eligible either if you have earned more than £2,600 in the past six months or £3,600 if you are in a couple.

You will also not qualify if you have not paid off any previous advance loans, as you can only have one at a time.

You can apply for a budgeting advance by calling the Universal Credit helpline on 0800 328 5644.

An advisor will then asses you can pay the loan back – they’ll see if you have any debts and how much you owe to help work this out.

The phone lines are open Monday to Friday, 8am to 6pm, and you’ll normally get a decision on the same day.

Alternatively, you can apply through your online account or speak to your Jobcentre Plus work coach.

Paying the advance back

You have to pay any money you were given back, but you will not be charged interest.

The money will be taken out of your Universal Credit payments, and you will pay it back over two years, starting from your next payment.

So for example, if you get an advance of £240 and you pay this back over 24 months, £10 will be taken out of your payment each month until this is paid back.

If you cannot afford your advance repayments, you can ask for the amount you pay to be lowered.

You can call the Universal Credit helpline or contact the Jobcentre helpline.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing [email protected].

You can also join our new Sun Money Facebook group to share stories and tips and engage with the consumer team and other group members.

A MUM who swindled more than £75,000 in benefits to pay for a boob job and luxury holidays then turned to running an illegal puppy farm to make more cash.

Tammy Hart, 48, made at least £35,000 from her criminal farm after being released from jail for wrongly claiming tax credits to fund her plush lifestyle.

6

6

6

Hart had also lied that she was single – when she was secretly married to the father of her two children.

A court heard she and her husband Neil Hart, 53, lived a “lavish” lifestyle after wrongly pocketing taxpayers’ money.

After being jailed for two years, she then turned back to crime, becoming an unlicensed dog breeder following her release.

Hart’s illegal puppy farm was busted, and the benefit swindler was ordered to pay more than £40,000 as a result.

The mum-of-two – then going by the name of Tammy Gunter – had already been ordered to pay back £23,358 from her benefits fiddle.

At the earlier hearing seven years ago, prosecutor Nuhu Gobir said Hart was granted tax credits by saying she was a single mother – and also made false claims for student finance and a £2,000 NHS bursary to train as a nurse.

Overall, Hart was handed £76,008.63 in tax credits between 2007 and 2016, the court heard.

The couple splurged the money on holidays to Las Vegas and Florida in 2011 and 2013.

She also took out a loan of £22,000 at one point for a holiday home in the US.

Mr Gobir said: “They were already in a relationship and had been living together as a family since 5 December, 1997.”

He said Hart claimed tax credits for nine years when she was working part-time in a shop and a garage.

Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court heard Hart even forged a letter purporting to be from HMRC.

Mr Gobir said: “Tammy Gunter made a claim that she was a single person working at least 16 hours per week.

“She stated that she had two children and no other income. The defendant dishonestly maintained she was single. She enjoyed a lavish lifestyle.”

Describing her false claim, Mr Gobir said: “She stated that she was separated and was a single parent with two dependent children.

“Neil Hart lied about his address to assist Tammy Gunter with the application. The total loss to the public purse in effect is £87,450.”

The DWP, HMRC and the HS Counter Fraud Service Wales began a joint investigation in January 2015 and the couple were arrested.

Hart admitted being knowingly concerned in fraudulent activity undertaken with a view to obtaining tax credits, one count of forgery and four counts of fraud.

Byron Broadstock, defending Hart, of Blackwood, South Wales, said the couple had a “tumultuous” relationship.

6

6

6

He said: “Many of the purchases that have been described as extravagant, they are out of the ordinary. They were often gestures in reconciliation.”

He said the plastic surgery “wasn’t simply for purely cosmetic reasons. It was psychological reasons.”

Hart was jailed for two years, while her husband was jailed for six months.

But when she was released she set up her dog breeding business.

Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court heard between September 2021 and May 2022 Hart had advertised 17 litters for sale, with puppies sold at upwards of £1,500 each.

She was found with 29 dogs cooped up in pens which were covered in faeces and urine. The animals were found to have serious health conditions with one puppy suffering from deformities.

Hart was given a suspended prison sentenced for unlicensed dog breeding and has been ordered to pay back the money in a Proceeds of Crime hearing.

She was sentenced to a 16-week custodial sentence suspended for 52 weeks for charges including causing unnecessary suffering to one of the 29 dogs.

She also admitted three counts of a banned practiced under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 for not declaring selling puppies in course of business, two counts of unlicensed dog breeding and three counts of failing to look after the needs of animals.

Hart was also disqualified from dealing in all animals for a period of seven years under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Hart was ordered to pay a Confiscation Order of £35,639.43, to be paid within three months or face a custodial sentence of 12 months at Cardiff Crown Court.

She was also ordered to pay costs of £8,000, to be paid within three months after the confiscation order is paid.

Cllr Philippa Leonard, Caerphilly council’s Cabinet Member for Public Protection, said: “Unlicensed dog breeding is a serious matter, and it is hoped that the outcome of this case will serve as a strong deterrent to those who operate illegally.

“This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adherence with dog-breeding regulations and the necessity to obtain the required licences so that we as a council can monitor and safeguard animal welfare at dog breeding establishments.”

“Whenever possible Caerphilly County Borough Council will use the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act to deprive convicted unlicensed dog breeders of their ill-gotten gains.

“If anyone is concerned or suspicious of illegal dog breeding, please contact our Trading Standards or Licensing teams. Your information will help us tackle illegal puppy breeding in Caerphilly and will help stop animals being exploited by unscrupulous breeders.”

Sandra Martin, who shot to fame on Gogglebox, has admitted she’s ‘glad’ to be back on benefits

Former Gogglebox star Sandra Martin has confessed that she “prefers” life on benefits, stating it’s less stressful.

The 55-year-old telly favourite, who rose to fame alongside her best mate Sandi Bogle on the popular Channel 4 show, revealed she had to sign back on in February 2018 after her TV earnings dwindled.

Despite having credits from reality series 100 Years Younger in 21 Days and various chat show appearances, Sandra admitted the work was short-lived.

After leaving Gogglebox in 2017, she splurged the last of her earnings on a hotel stay. By Christmas of the same year, she confessed to being “homeless and penniless”, struggling to make ends meet.

In 2018, Sandra told The Sun: “I went back to the job centre and shouted, ‘Hello! I’m home!’ I was on benefits for 35 years before I went on Gogglebox. I’m glad I’m back on social. I loved Gogglebox, but it was stressful because I couldn’t talk as much as I wanted, when I wanted.”

Now, she says she feels more comfortable living on handouts than pursuing TV fame, despite critics highlighting her frequent posts about jetting off on holidays, reports the Express.

Sandra added, “I turned to benefits when the money ran out. It’s less stressful. I feel like myself again.”

In January of this year, Sandra faced further criticism after refusing to sit in a plane’s middle seat because she claimed to be a “celebrity.” The former fan-favourite expressed her displeasure at being allocated the middle seat on social media.

Sandra caused a stir on a Ryanair flight when she refused to sit between two passengers. She shared a video from inside the plane’s cabin, standing in the aisle in protest.

She told her followers: “There’s no person there, I’m not showing your face and there’s one person there and they want me to sit there. No, I’m a celebrity… I’m Sandra Gogglebox. I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!”

“I cannot sit in that spot. No, I can’t breathe, I’m gonna faint, I’m gonna fart.”

Sandra said she was waiting until boarding was finished to see if there was a spare alternative seat.

In a kind gesture, her neighbour eventually agreed to swap places, and Sandra took the aisle seat for the flight.

If you’re planning to take Social Security in 2025, you’re likely nearing retirement. While that’s an exciting chapter in life, even small mistakes can sometimes throw a wrench in your plans — so it’s critical to ensure you have a strong plan heading into your senior years.

There’s not necessarily a right or wrong Social Security strategy, but there is one aspect that trips many retirees up: knowing how your claiming age will affect your lifetime benefit.

Your benefit will be locked in for life

The age you file for benefits will have an immediate and lifelong impact on your benefit amount. However, many people are unaware of just how much their decision will affect their monthly income.

Image source: Getty Images.

According to a 2025 survey from the Nationwide Retirement Institute, only 21% of U.S. adults can correctly name their full retirement age (FRA) — which is the age at which you’re entitled to your full benefit based on your work history. Your FRA will depend on your birth year, but everyone’s will fall between ages 66 and 67.

Filing before your FRA will result in a reduced payment, which is also a point of confusion for many people. The survey found that 40% of Americans believe that if they file for benefits early, their payments will automatically go up once they reach their FRA. In reality, though, these reductions are permanent, and those smaller payments will be locked in for life.

These reductions can be significant, too. If you have an FRA of 67 years old, filing at 62 will slash your checks by 30%. The average retired worker receives around $588 less per month at age 62 compared to age 67, according to 2024 data from the Social Security Administration.

Data source: Social Security Administration. Table by author.

Not knowing exactly how your age will affect your lifetime benefit amount is a simple mistake to make, so you’re in good company if you’re among the 40% of Americans in this boat. But if you’re heading into retirement expecting your benefit to increase by hundreds of dollars per month in a few years, it could be a costly mistake.

The best move you can make right now

Before you begin claiming benefits, one of the best things you can do is check your estimated benefit amount.

You can do this by reviewing your statements through your mySocialSecurity account online, where you’ll see an estimate of your future benefit based on your real earnings. This is also a prime opportunity to double-check that your earning history is correct, because if there’s any information missing or incorrect, it can affect your benefit amount.

The estimate you see on your statements is your full benefit amount, or the payment you’ll receive by filing at your FRA. From there, you can determine exactly how your claiming age will affect the size of your checks.

Data source: Social Security Administration. Table by author.

You can also file for benefits at any age between birthdays, but for every month you claim before your FRA, your benefits will be reduced slightly more. By having at least a rough estimate of how much will be deducted, it will be easier to plan accordingly.

Keep in mind, too, that if you’re filing after your FRA (up to age 70), that will also alter your benefit. If you have an FRA of 67 and you file at 70, you’ll collect your full benefit, plus a bonus of 24% per month.

There’s no right or wrong time to take Social Security, but it is important to know how that decision will affect your benefit. When you know what to expect from Social Security heading into retirement, you can rest easier knowing you’re as prepared as possible.

THE Government has confirmed when it’s planning to bring in controversial new powers aimed at cracking down on benefits fraudsters.

Banks will be drafted in to help identify benefits cheats and convicted fraudsters could be stripped of their driving licences under the new Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) plans.

1

New Government documents have revealed it’s planning to bring the measures under the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill in April 2026.

The DWP has said it will be the “biggest fraud crackdown in a generation”.

It’s estimated the new powers could save taxpayers £1.5billion over five years.

Last year, an estimated £7.4billion was lost to benefits fraud – around 2.8% of total welfare spending.

A further £1.6bn (0.6%) was overpaid due to unintentional errors by claimants, while £0.8bn (0.3%) was overpaid because of errors by the DWP.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been trying to boost the public purse after it was revealed she needs to plug a £50billion hole in public finances.

The new measures mean banks will help to identify customers who might have breached benefit eligibility rules, such as exceeding the £16,000 savings limit for Universal Credit.

They will share limited data with the DWP but can’t provide transaction details, so officials won’t be able to see how benefit claimants spend their money.

The DWP also won’t gain direct access to claimants’ bank accounts, but it will receive cases flagged for investigation.

Financial institutions face penalties if they overshare information beyond what’s permitted.

Airlines and other third-party organisations might also have to provide information to help detect benefit claims made from abroad that could violate eligibility rules.

According to the Government documents, any information “will not be shared on the presumption or suspicion that anyone is guilty of any offence”.

However officials will gain authority to recover money directly from fraudsters’ bank accounts.

As well as this, persistent benefit fraudsters who fail to repay their debts could face driving bans lasting up to two years.

DWP minister Liz Kendall has pledged to clamp down on benefit cheats, saying back in March: “The social security system that we inherited from the Conservatives is failing the very people that it is supposed to help and is holding our country back.

“The facts speak for themselves. One in 10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit. Almost one million young people are not in education, employment or training – one in eight of all our young people.”

The DWP has said it will have strong safeguards in place, including new inspection and reporting mechanisms.

DWP staff will also receive comprehensive training before using the new powers.

However campaign groups have warned the powers could invade claimants’ rights to financial privacy and it could also lead to legitimate claimants being wrongly investigated.

In a letter to Kendall last year, the directors of Big Brother Watch and Age UK described the plans as “mass financial surveillance powers” which they said would “represent a severe and disproportionate intrusion into the nation’s privacy”.

If the Trump administration succeeds in barring undocumented immigrants from federally funded “public benefit” programs, vulnerable children and families across California would suffer greatly, losing access to emergency shelters, vital healthcare, early education and life-saving nutritional support, according to state and local officials who filed their opposition to the changes in federal court.

The new restrictions would harm undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens — including the U.S.-born children of immigrants and people suffering from mental illness and homelessness who lack documentation — and put intense stress on the state’s emergency healthcare system, the officials said.

Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, healthcare and nutritional support, may have to shutter some of its programs if the new rules barring immigrants withstand a lawsuit filed by California and other liberal-led states, officials said.

In a declaration filed as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the child care and developmental division of the California Department of Social Services, wrote that the restrictions would have an immediate “chilling effect” on immigrant and mixed-status families seeking support, but also cause broader “ripple effects” — especially in rural California communities that rely on such programs as “a critical safety net” for vulnerable residents, but also as major employers.

“Children would lose educational, nutritional, and healthcare services. Parents or guardians may be forced to cut spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced out of work so they can care for their children,” Jaime-Milehan said.

Rural communities would see programs shutter, and family providers lose their jobs, she wrote.

Tony Thurmond, California’s superintendent of public instruction, warned in a declaration that the “chilling effect” from such rules could potentially drive away talented educators who disagree with such policies and decide to “seek other employment that does not discriminate against children and families.”

Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia who submitted declarations in support of those states’ lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new rules. Six other officials from California also submitted declarations.

The lawsuit followed announcements last month from various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — that funding recipients would be required to begin screening out undocumented immigrants.

The announcements followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said his administration would “uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.”

Trump’s order cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as welfare reform, as barring noncitizens from participating in federally funded benefits programs, and criticized past administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain “life or safety” programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions.

The order mandated that federal agencies restrict access to benefits programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to “prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.”

California and the other states sued July 21, alleging the new restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law.

“We’re not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we’re talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.

In addition to programs like Head Start, Bonta said the new restrictions threatened access to short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and healthcare for people with mental illness and substance abuse issues.

The declarations are part of a motion asking the federal judge overseeing the case to issue a preliminary injunction barring the changes from taking effect while the litigation plays out.

Beth Neary, assistant director of HIV health services at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in her declaration that the new restrictions would impede healthcare services for an array of San Francisco residents experiencing homelessness — including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens.

“Individuals experiencing homelessness periodically lack identity and other documents that would be needed to verify their citizenship or immigration status due to frequent moves and greater risk of theft of their belongings,” she wrote.

Colleen Chawla, chief of San Mateo County Health, wrote that her organization — the county’s “safety-net” care provider — has worked for years to build up trust in immigrant communities.

“But if our clients worry that they will not be able to qualify for the care they need, or that they or members of their family face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek care, they will stop coming,” Chawla wrote. “This will exacerbate their health conditions.”

Greta S. Hansen, chief operating officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of her county’s residents are foreign-born and more than 60% of the county’s children have at least one foreign-born parent — among the highest rates anywhere in the country.

The administration’s changes would threaten all of them, but also everyone else in the county, she wrote.

“The cumulative effect of patients not receiving preventive care and necessary medications would likely be a strain on Santa Clara’s emergency services, which would result in increased costs to Santa Clara and could also lead to decreased capacity for emergency care across the community,” Hansen wrote.

The Trump administration has defended the new rules, including in court.

In response to the states’ motion for preliminary injunction, attorneys for the administration argued that the rule changes are squarely in line with the 1996 welfare reform law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it.

They wrote that the notices announcing the new rules that were sent out by federal agencies “merely recognize that the breadth of benefits available to unqualified aliens is narrower than the agencies previously interpreted,” and “restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize unqualified aliens.”

The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction.

In the world of women’s cricket, Ellyse Perry has seen it all.

From an Australia debut in 2007 at the age of just 16, to juggling international football alongside cricket, to the unforgettable 3-19 with a fractured ankle to win the World Cup in 2013 – one of her eight World Cup wins – plus a Commonwealth Games triumph in 2022.

Throughout it all, the game has transformed beyond recognition, with Perry as the star at its centre.

The 34-year-old all-rounder has 337 caps for Australia across formats, having been one of the country’s first players to be awarded a central contract in 2008, and is now one of the top names on any wishlist for the world’s various franchise leagues.

Having represented Royal Challengers Bengaluru in India’s Women’s Premier League and Sydney Sixers in her native Women’s Big Bash (WBBL), Perry is now beginning her third season with Birmingham Phoenix in The Hundred, having spent the early summer playing for Hampshire in the Women’s Vitality Blast and the One-Day Cup.

Though Perry’s focus is on leading Phoenix, who finished seventh in the table in 2024, she and the other Australians in the tournament – including Alana King, Beth Mooney, Annabel Sutherland and Phoebe Litchfield – will have one eye on the upcoming challenge of defending their 50-over World Cup title in India this autumn.

The Australia side has a strong case to be regarded as one of the greatest teams in sporting history but their most recent triumph, a 16-0 thrashing of England in the Ashes, saw a spotlight on women’s cricket in the UK like never before.

“It’s really easy to get caught up in the scoreline of that series without really seeing the bigger picture,” said Perry.

“There are some amazing players in that English team, world-class players who can win a game from anywhere.

“It was a moment in time. It was great for us and for our fans, playing at home during our summer, but I sort of feel like it was probably a bit of an anomaly.

“The next time we meet, it’ll be different circumstances – maybe in a World Cup. It’s a moment that has passed and not something that we all want to get stuck on or gloat about because cricket is so fickle, things can change so quickly.”

England received widespread criticism for the defeats and their attitude, with fans becoming increasingly frustrated by repeated claims of them being “so close” to beating Australia and with accusations of cosiness and complacency within the team.

Though Perry admits she did not pay much attention to what was said in the media during the series, she welcomes the increased scrutiny as a good thing for the game.

“It shows that people care, and people expect a certain level of performance from their elite female teams and they are passionate about it.

“That’s a far cry from where the women’s game was five to 10 years ago. So while criticism and being held to account isn’t always a pleasant thing, equally it’s a very positive thing for the direction of the game and that it’s being taken really seriously.

“People expect more [now we are paid more] and all we’ve wanted is to be taken seriously and to be respected, for the way that we play the game and the level that we can take the game to, so with that comes pressure to perform.

“There will be moments where that’s hard to handle and it’s a challenge, but it’s also exactly what the game needs.”

THOUSANDS on Universal Credit and 11 other benefits can expect early payments this month.

Benefits are paid into your bank or building society account earlier if your usual payment date falls on a bank holiday or the weekend.

1

The next bank holiday is on Monday, August 25, meaning if you’re expecting a payment on this date it will be made on August 22.

So, if you check your statement on August 22 and notice a surprise amount of money, it will likely be your benefit being issued earlier.

If you are paid earlier than usual this month, make sure the money stretches further as you will have to wait longer than normal to get your next payment.

Universal Credit and 11 other benefits are paid on the first working day before a bank holiday. The full list is:

Anyone paid one of the above 12 benefits on August 22 instead of August 23, 24 or 25, should receive the same amount as usual.

The only reason the payment amount might change is if you have had a change in your circumstances.

For example, if you are on Universal Credit and your earnings have increased, your payment might go down.

If you are expecting a payment on August 22 and don’t receive it, contact the DWP.

You can also submit a complaint to the Government department to get a problem sorted if your payment is wrong.

After August, there are two more bank holidays before the end of the year which could impact when you receive your benefits.

Here’s when DWP or HMRC will make your payments:

• December 25 – payments will be made on December 24 instead
• December 26 – payments will be made on December 24 instead

Upcoming changes to Universal Credit and PIP

Last month, the Government U-turned on its welfare bill meaning Brits on Universal Credit and PIP will see fewer changes.

Sir Keir Starmer had been hoping to push through reforms that would have seen some benefit claimants receiving less money.

The Government had planned to make major changes to the health element of Universal Credit.

A single person who is aged 25 or over can receive the basic level of the benefit, which comes in at £400.14 every month.

But those getting an incapacity top-up due to a disability or long-term condition can get an extra £423.37.

The new plans mean that anyone up to the age of 22 will not be able to claim the health element.

Ministers had also tried to freeze the payment for the next four years but a commitment was made for it to go up with inflation.

That means people claiming the health element of Universal Credit and new claimants with the most severe conditions will see their incomes protected in real terms.

Meanwhile, PIP claimants would have faced stricter tests to qualify for support. 

The Government had put forward that people would need to score four points in one task such as washing and dressing to qualify for support. 

Currently they can qualify with eight points across multiple activities.

The Government initially partially u-turned, saying the changes would come into effect in November 2026, but anyone claiming the benefit before this date would not be impacted.

However, following a rebellion from 47 MPs, the Government shelved the PIP plans entirely. You can find out more in our guide.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing [email protected].

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories

MILLIONS receiving benefits are in line for one-off boosts to help ease the pain on budgets at certain pressure points over the coming months.

As long as you are claiming qualifying benefits, you could receive several cash injections before the end of the year,

1

Here are all the one-off payments on the cards…

Household Support Fund

You can get help with the cost of living through the Household Support Fund.

The pot is worth £421 million and distributed by local councils.

Each authority has different qualifying criteria and gives support in different ways and for different amounts.

It means that what you are able to apply for depends on where you live, as well as your financial situation.

The money is usually given as cash transfer or through shopping or food vouchers.

For example, in some parts of the country such as Portsmouth you can get as much as £1,000.

Whereas households in other areas including Doncaster may be more likely to get up to £300 to support with gas, electricity and food costs.

To find out, you’ll need to look what your council offers and apply directly.

DWP Christmas bonus

Thousands of households on benefits receive a tax-free £10 cash boost from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

The tax-free £10 payment is paid to eligible households usually during the first full week of December.

To qualify for the payment you must be present or “ordinarily resident” in the UK, Channel Islands, Isle of Man or Gibraltar.

Households will also need to claim at least one of the 20 qualifying benefits within the same period.

The bonus is for those who receive Universal Credit plus mone of the qualifying benefits.

To claim your part of the Christmas cash, you’ll need to be claiming at least one of the following DWP’s benefits:

• Armed Forces Independence Payment
• Attendance Allowance
• Carer’s Allowance
• Child Disability Payment
• Constant Attendance Allowance (paid under Industrial Injuries or War Pensions schemes)
• Contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance (once the main phase of the benefit is entered after the first 13 weeks of claim)
• Disability Living Allowance
• Incapacity Benefit at the long-term rate
• Industrial Death Benefit (for widows or widowers)
• Mobility Supplement
• Pension Credit – the guarantee element
• Personal Independence Payment (PIP)
• State Pension (including Graduated Retirement Benefit)
• Severe Disablement Allowance (transitionally protected)
• Unemployability Supplement or Allowance (paid under Industrial Injuries or War Pensions schemes)
• War Disablement Pension at State Pension age
• War Widow’s Pension
• Widowed Mother’s Allowance
• Widowed Parent’s Allowance
• Widow’s Pension

If you’re part of a married couple, in a civil partnership or live together, you’ll both get the cash bonus – as long as you both are eligible.

If you or your partner do not get one of the above qualifying benefits, then they could still get the bonus if they are over the state pension age by the end of the qualifying week.

Winter Fuel payment

The Winter Fuel Payment is made every year to help cover the cost of energy over the colder months.

It has been changed in recent months so that fewer can claim.

However, the cash boost, worth up to £300, is still valuable for those who quality – particularly those on Pension Credit.

The cash is usually paid in November and December, with some made up until the end of January the following year.

If you haven’t got your payment by then, you need to call the office that pays your benefits.

Households eligible for the payment are usually told via a letter sent in October or November each year.

If you think you meet the criteria, but don’t automatically get the winter fuel payment, you will have to apply on the government’s website.

The Child Winter Heating Assistance

If you’re based in Scotland, you could receive a child winter heating assistance payment of £255.80. 

You get child winter heating payment for a child or young person under 19 who lives in Scotland and who is entitled to:

• the highest rate of the care component of child disability payment (CDP) or disability living allowance (DLA), or
• the enhanced rate of the daily living component of adult disability payment (ADP) or personal independence payment (PIP).

They must be entitled to the relevant disability benefit during the ‘qualifying week’, which is the week beginning on the third Monday in September (w/c Septmber 15 in 2025).

You do not have to make a claim for the payment, but it should be paid by Social Security Scotland, usually in November. 

If you think you’re entitled but have not received payment by the end of December, you should contact Social Security Scotland on 0800 182 2222.

Warm Home Discount

The Warm Home Discount is an automatic £150 discount off energy bills.

As the money is a discount, there is no money paid to you, but you’ll get the payment automatically if your electricity supplier is part of the scheme and you qualify.

You’ll have to be in receipt of one of the following benefits to qualify for one of the payments:

If you don’t claim any of the above benefits, you won’t be eligible for the payment.

Cold Weather payment

Cold weather payments are dished out when temperatures are recorded as, or forecast to be, zero degrees or below, on average, for seven consecutive days between November 1 and March 31.

Eligible Brits are then given extra money to help heat their homes.

You get £25 for each seven-day period where the weather is below zero Celsius on average during this time frame.

You can check if your area has had a cold weather payment by popping your postcode into the government’s tool on its website.

You’ll need to be on certain benefits to qualify, which are:

• Pension credit
• Income support
• Income-based jobseeker’s allowance
• Income-related employment and support allowance
• Universal Credit
• Support for mortgage interest

Those in Scotland don’t get cold weather payments but may be able to receive a winter heating payment instead.

Student maintenance payments loans

Student maintenance loans are paid to university students to help cover living costs such as rent.

They are usually paid at the start of each new term, so you typically receive three payments a year.

 Maintenance Loans are paid straight into your student bank account in three (almost) equal instalments throughout the year.

The amount you will receive depends on where in the UK you’re from, whether you’ll be living at home or not, your household income and how long you’re studying for.

The average Maintenance Loan is approximately £6,116 a year.

THOUSANDS of households need to look out for supermarket vouchers landing on doormats worth up to £180.

The latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation figures for June confirmed food prices have soared in the last 12 months.

1

But there are ways to drive down the cost of your weekly shop, starting with help through the Household Support Fund (HSF).

The £742million fund has been shared between councils in England who then decide how to allocate their share.

Some are directing cash payments to residents in need while others are distributing supermarket vouchers to cover the summer holidays.

We’ve rounded up what some local authorities are offering below.

We won’t have covered all the councils offering help, so if your local authority isn’t included it’s worth checking with it to see what you are eligible for.

Most councils have pages on their websites dedicated to the Household Support Fund where you’ll find details on who is eligible and what you’re in line for.

You can find what local council area you fall under by visiting www.gov.uk/find-local-council.

That said, below are some of the councils offering qualifying households supermarket vouchers.

Bracknell Forest Council

Schools in Bracknell are automatically distributing supermarket vouchers to children registered for free school meals.

These vouchers have been paid for through Bracknell Forest Council’s allotment of the Household Support Fund.

The council has not confirmed how much the vouchers are worth.

Wakefield Metropolitan District Counci

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council is issuing supermarket vouchers worth £50 to families receiving council tax support.

The vouchers are being issued via letters on July 21 and take up to seven days to arrive.

Full instructions on how to redeem the vouchers will be included in the letters.

Once the voucher has been redeemed, it doesn’t have to be used all at once and can be used several times until it is spent.

Nottingham City Council

Nottingham City Council is distributing £75 supermarket vouchers to households each month until March 2026.

There is a limit on the number of vouchers being shared each month meaning you have to act fast to claim one.

Applications for this month’s vouchers opened on July 7 so may all have been allocated for July.

Nottingham City Council has said the dates applications for vouchers will open between August and next March will be confirmed “later in July”.

Ealing Council

Ealing Council is giving supermarket vouchers worth £90 to families with children on benefits-related free school meals this month.

The vouchers are worth £90 per child meaning you could get £180 if you have two kids.

You don’t need to apply for the vouchers as they are being sent automatically to emails or as letters.

The council’s partner, Blackhawk, is issuing a 16-digit personalised code and instructions on how to redeem the vouchers on the Blackhawk website – ealingcouncil.select-your-reward.co.uk.

Devon County Council

Devon County Council has issued supermarket vouchers worth more than £90 to 22,000 families with children on free school meals.

The £90 is equivalent to £15 per week for the six week school holiday.

The council has said the vouchers can be redeemed in major supermarkets but hasn’t said which ones.

Portsmouth City Council

Portsmouth City Council is issuing £50 supermarket vouchers to children on benefits-related free school meals.

You might also be eligible if your child is not on free school meals and you’re on a low income, and can apply for the vouchers from the end of the school term.

You can also forward your email address to the council and will be contacted when the application window opens.

More details can be found via www.portsmouth.gov.uk/services/benefits-and-money-advice/help-and-support/money-advice/household-support-fund.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council

Families on free school meals are eligible for supermarket food vouchers being distributed by schools in the area.

You do not need to apply as they are being issued automatically.

Food vouchers may also be available for children under five years if certain criteria is met.

To receive a voucher, children must be living in Bournemouth, Christchurch, or Poole and meet one of the following criteria:

• currently claiming 2 year old early education funding at an early years setting in Bournemouth, Christchurch or Poole during the term
• currently claiming Early Years Pupil Premium funding for 3 and 4 year olds at an early years setting in Bournemouth, Christchurch or Poole during the term (this is different to the early education funding available to all 3 and 4 year olds)
• currently have an open case with a social worker or Early Help family support worker and are of pre-school age

Food vouchers for this group of families have to be applied for, with more details on the BCP Council website.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing [email protected].

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories

Six months into President Trump’s second term, his predilection for picking on California has never been on fuller display, turning the state broadly and Los Angeles specifically into key battlegrounds for his right-wing agenda.

There are chaotic immigration raids occurring across the state and military troops on L.A. streets. The administration has sued the state or city over sanctuary policies, transgender athletes and the price of eggs. The state has sued the administration more than 30 times, including over funding cuts, voting restrictions and the undoing of birthright citizenship.

Federal officials are investigating L.A. County’s gun permitting policies, and have sought to overturn a host of education, health and environmental regulations. They have talked not only of enforcing federal laws for the benefit of California residents, but of showing up in full force — soldiers and all — to wrench control from the state’s elected leaders.

Kristi Noem has lunch with National Guard troops at the Federal Building on Wilshire Boulevard on May 5 in Los Angeles.

(Luke Johnson/Los Angeles Times)

“We are not going away,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said at a news conference in Los Angeles last month. “We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country, and what they have tried to insert into this city.”

The antagonism toward California is not entirely surprising, having been a feature of Trump’s first term and his recent presidential campaign. And yet, the breadth and pace of the administration’s attacks, aided by a Republican-controlled Congress and a U.S. Supreme Court convinced of executive power, have stunned many — pleasing some and infuriating others.

“Trump’s been able to go much further, much faster than anyone would have calculated, with the assistance of the Supreme Court,” said Bob Shrum, director of the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future.

“In a second Trump term, he’s clearly either feeling or acting more emboldened and testing the limits of his power, and Republicans in Congress certainly aren’t doing anything to try to rein that in,” said California Sen. Alex Padilla, who was forced to the ground and handcuffed by federal agents after confronting Noem at her news conference. “It’s enraging. It’s offensive.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) is removed from the room after interrupting a news conference with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

(Luke Johnson/Los Angeles Times)

“What is clear after six months is we now have some measure of checks and balances in California, a counterweight to one-party supermajority control at the state level,” said Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin). “From securing the border to reversing the ban on gas cars to protecting girls’ sports, balance and common sense are returning to our state.”

Rob Stutzman, a longtime GOP strategist in California who is no fan of Trump, said the president’s motivations for targeting California are obvious, as it “is the contrast that he basically has built MAGA on.”

Visuals of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents rounding up immigrants in liberal California are red meat to the MAGA base, Stutzman said. “What they’ve been able to do in California is basically create the live TV show that they want.”

But Trump is hardly the only politician who benefits from his administration being on a war footing with the nation’s most populous blue state, Stutzman said. There is a “symbiotic relationship that Democrats in California have with Trump,” he said, and leaders such as Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also benefit politically when they’re seen as standing up to the president.

“If not for Trump’s assault on California, was Gavin Newsom in South Carolina?” Stutzman asked, of what many viewed as an early presidential campaign stop earlier this month. “Would Karen Bass otherwise have been given a lifeline after her disastrous performance with the fires?”

Bass, in a statement to The Times, defended her record, saying both homelessness and homicides are down and fire recovery is moving quickly. She said the Trump administration was helpful with early fire response, but “now they’ve assaulted our city” with immigration raids — which is why L.A. has joined in litigation to stop them, as her “number one job is to protect Angelenos.”

Bob Salladay, a senior advisor to Newsom, dismissed the idea that battling Trump is in any way good for California or welcomed by its leaders. “That’s not why we’re fighting him,” he said. “We’re fighting him because what he’s doing is immoral and illegal.”

Protesters gather in front of City Hall to denounce the Trump administration while attending a “Good Trouble Lives On” demonstration on Thursday in Los Angeles. This is one of hundreds of Good Trouble protests happening around the country in honor of the late civil rights leader and Congressman John Lewis.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Salladay agreed, however, that the last six months have produced a stunning showdown over American values that few predicted — even with the conservative Project 2025 playbook laying out much of it in advance.

“We knew it would be bad. We didn’t know it would be this bad,” Salladay said. “We didn’t know it would be the president of the United States sending U.S. troops into an American city and taking away resources from the National Guard for public theater.”

What’s being fought over?

When protests over early immigration raids erupted in scattered pockets of L.A. and downtown, Trump dramatized them as a grave threat to citywide safety, in part to justify bringing in the military. Local officials say masked and militarized agents swarming Latino and other immigrant neighborhoods and racially profiling targets for detention have undermined safety far more than the protests ever did.

Trump has since pulled back about half the troops, but thousands remain. A federal judge recently ordered federal agents to stop using racial profiling to carry out indiscriminate arrests, but raids continue.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, is demanding California counties provide lists of noncitizens in their jails.

Protesters walk onto the fields adjacent to the Glass House, where immigration raids took place July 10 in Camarillo.

(Julie Leopo / For The Times)

Beyond L.A., officials and industry leaders say immigration raids have badly spooked workers in farming, construction, street vending and other service sectors, with some leaving the job for fear of being detained. Meanwhile, Trump’s tariff war with trading partners has made it more difficult for some farmers to purchase equipment and chemical supplies.

The Justice Department is suing the state for allowing transgender girls to compete in girls’ sports, alleging such policies violate federal civil rights law. It is suing the state over an animal welfare law protecting hens from being kept in small cages, blaming the policy for driving up the cost of eggs in violation of federal farming regulations. It is investigating L.A. County’s gun permitting process, suggesting excessive fees and wait times are violating people’s gun rights.

Trump signed legislation to undo California’s aggressive limits on auto emissions and a landmark rule that would ban new gas-only car sales in the state by 2035. His administration just rescinded billions of dollars for a long-planned high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco, calling it a “boondoggle.”

Work continues on the California High Speed Rail, Hanford Viaduct.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

The legal antagonism has cut in the opposite direction, as well, with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office having sued the Trump administration more than 30 times in the last six months over a range of issues.

Bonta has sued over billions of dollars in cuts to education funding and billions of dollars in cuts to medical research and development. He has sued over Trump executive orders declaring that California must radically restrict voting access, over Trump’s unilateral tariff scheme and over clawbacks of funding and approvals for wind energy and electric vehicle charging stations.

Bonta called the Trump administration’s targeting of the state “a lot of show” — and “disrespectful, inappropriate and unlawful.” He noted a lot of wins in court for the state, but also acknowledged the administration has scored victories, too, particularly at the Supreme Court, which has temporarily cleared the way for mass layoffs of federal employees, the dismantling of the Department of Education and the undoing of birthright citizenship.

But those rulings are “just procedural” for now as litigation continues, Bonta stressed, and the fight continues.

“We are absolutely unapologetic, resolute, committed to meeting the Trump administration in court and beating them back each time they violate the law,” Bonta said.

Who benefits?

After six months of entrenched political infighting between the U.S. and its largest state, who benefits?

Trump, officials in his administration and some state Republicans are adamant that it is good, hardworking, law-abiding people of California, who they allege have long suffered under liberal state policies that reward criminals and unauthorized immigrants.

“What would Los Angeles look like without illegal aliens?” Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top policy advisors, recently asked on Fox News — before suggesting, without proof, that it would have better healthcare and schooling for U.S. children and “no drug deaths” on the streets.

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller arrive to a bill signing event in the East Room of the White House on Wednesday..

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement to The Times that “Gavin Newscum” — Trump’s favorite insult — is “destroying” the state, and that Trump “has had to step in and save Californians from Gavin’s incompetence.”

“First, when Newscum was chronically unprepared to address the January wildfires, and more recently when he refused to stop violent, left-wing rioters from attacking federal law enforcement,” Jackson said. “This doesn’t even account for Newscum’s radical, left-wing policies, which the Administration is working to protect Californians — and all Americans — from, like letting men destroy women’s sports, or turning a blind eye to child labor exploitation.”

Trump, she said, “will continue to stand up for Californians like a real leader, while Newsom sips wine in Napa.”

Some Republicans in the state strongly agree, including Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is running for governor. With Trump in office, Bianco said, “there’s finally someone working and looking out for Californians’ best interests.”

He said Trump called in troops only because of the “embarrassing” failure of L.A. officials to maintain order. He said the only reason ICE is going after unauthorized immigrants in the streets — with some bystanders admittedly caught in the fray — is that California sanctuary laws prevent agents from just picking them up in jails.

“This is an absolute failure of a Democrat-led agenda and Democrat policy that is forcing the federal government to go into our neighborhoods looking for these criminals,” Bianco said. “Californians are being punished for it because of failed California leadership, not because of the federal government.”

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco said Trump called in troops only because of the “embarrassing” failure of L.A. officials to maintain order.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Newsom, Bass and other liberal officials, of course, have framed Trump’s actions in the state in very different terms.

In a recent filing in the federal case challenging the constitutionality of ICE’s immigration tactics in L.A., California and 17 other liberal-led states argued those tactics had left citizens and noncitizens afraid to go outside, turned “once bustling neighborhoods into ghost towns” and devastated local businesses.

State and local officials have said they are fighting the administration so aggressively because Trump’s policies threaten billions in federal funding for the state in education, healthcare, transportation and other sectors.

California Sen. Adam Schiff, a staunch adversary of Trump, said he has had particularly troubling conversations with farmers up and down the state, who are feeling the pain from Trump’s immigration polices and tariffs acutely.

“Their workers are increasingly not showing up. Their raw materials are increasingly more expensive because of the tariffs. Their markets are shrinking because of the recoil by other countries from this kind of indiscriminate turf war,” Schiff said. “Farmers are really in the epicenter of this.”

So, too, Schiff said, are the millions of Californians who could be affected by the administration’s decision to cut environmental funding and curtail disaster preparation and relief in the state, including by hampering water management and flood mitigation work and “slow-walking” wildfire relief in L.A.

“Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who doesn’t believe that it’s his job to represent the whole country — only the states that voted for him,” Schiff said. “The president seems to have a particular, personal vendetta against California, which is obviously [a] deep disservice to the millions of residents in our state, no matter whom they voted for.”

A ‘model’ for what’s next?

During her Los Angeles news conference, Noem said that federal officials in L.A. were “putting together a model and a blueprint” that could be replicated elsewhere — an apparent warning against other blue cities and states bucking the administration.

California officials saw it exactly that way. Bass has accused the administration of “treating Los Angeles as a test case for how far it can go in driving its political agenda forward while pushing the Constitution aside.”

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass arrives at MacArthur Park on July 7 as federal agents staged there.

(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

What happens next, several political observers said, depends on whether the antagonism continues to work politically, and whether the administration starts acting on its threats to crack down even more.

When Bass showed up in person to object to heavily armed immigration agents storming through MacArthur Park recently, U.S. Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino allegedly told her that she and other L.A. officials and residents “better get used to” agents being in the city, who “will go anywhere, anytime we want in Los Angeles.” Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin, when asked if Bass would be arrested, said they were “keeping everything on the table.”

Trump has suggested Newsom should be arrested, too, saying, “I’d do it.” Padilla was taken forcefully to the ground and handcuffed at a Noem press event. Trump has accused Schiff of criminal fraud for claiming primary residency in mortgage paperwork for a home in his district and one near his work in Washington, D.C., which Schiff called a baseless political attack.

Padilla said it’s all to be expected from a Republican administration that hates and fears everything that his state stands for, but that Democrats aren’t backing down and will continue to “organize, organize, organize” to defend Californians and win back power in the midterms.

“We’re not the fourth largest economy in the world despite our diversity and immigrant population, but because of it,” Padilla said. “Diversity and migrants doing well and making our country stronger is Donald Trump’s worst nightmare — and that has made California his No. 1 target.”

Federal immigration agents near MacArthur Park in the Westlake area on July 7.

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

Schiff said the administration’s actions in California in the last six months are indeed producing “the TV show that Trump wanted to show his MAGA base,” but “it’s a TV show that is not going over well with the American people.”

Trump’s approval numbers on immigration are down, Schiff said, because Americans don’t want to live in a country where landscapers, car wash employees and farmworkers with zero criminal convictions are terrorized by masked agents in the streets and U.S. citizen children are ripped from their parents.

“The more Trump tries to inflict harm and pain on California, and the more he disrupts life in California cities and communities, the more he makes the Republican brand absolutely toxic,” Schiff said, “and the more harm that he does to Republican elected leaders up and down the state.”

There are only three bank holidays left in England and Wales this year

Mark your calendars, folks – it’s time to jot down the remaining bank holidays for 2025. In England and Wales, we’ve only got three more to look forward to this year, with the next one just over a month away.

Regrettably, there are no plans to add any extra days off to the total of eight we’re getting in 2025, as there aren’t any national events on the horizon. However, many Brits will be chuffed to know that one is scheduled during the peak of summer on August 25, offering us the opportunity to (hopefully) bask in some much-needed sunshine.

The remaining bank holiday dates for England and Wales in 2025 are:

• Summer bank holiday: August 25 (Monday)
• Christmas Day: December 25 (Thursday)
• Boxing Day: December 26 (Friday)

While England and Wales have just three bank holidays left, residents of Scotland and Northern Ireland still have four to enjoy in 2025. In Scotland, these fall on August 4, December 1 of St Andrew’s Day, in addition to Christmas and Boxing Day.

Meanwhile, Northern Ireland’s bank holidays fall on July 14, marking the Battle of Boyne and August 25, followed by December 25 and 26. Those who also like to plan ahead can start pondering their 2026 and 2027 bank holidays now, as the Government has already unveiled its upcoming schedule.

READ MORE: Bank of England issues update on future of cash use in UKREAD MORE: Red flags of very rare condition as Love Island star rushed for emergency surgery

In 2026, for England and Wales, this includes:

• New Year’s Day: January 1 (Thursday)
• Good Friday: April 3 (Friday)
• Easter Monday: April 6 (Monday)
• Early May bank holiday: May 4 (Monday)
• Spring bank holiday: May 25 (Monday)
• Summer bank holiday: August 31 (Monday)
• Christmas Day: December 25 (Friday)
• Boxing Day (substitute day): December 28 (Monday)

For 2027, the Government also outlines:

• New Year’s Day: January 1 (Friday)
• Good Friday: March 26 (Friday)
• Easter Monday: March 29 (Monday)
• Early May bank holiday: May 3 (Monday)
• Spring bank holiday: May 31 (Monday)
• Summer bank holiday: August 30 (Monday)
• Christmas Day (substitute day): December 27 (Monday)
• Boxing Day (substitute day): December 28 (Tuesday)

According to the Express, Scotland’s dates for 2026 are:

• New Year’s Day: January 1 (Thursday)
• January bank holiday: January 2 (Friday)
• Good Friday: April 3 (Friday)
• Early May bank holiday: May 4 (Monday)
• Spring bank holiday: May 25 (Monday)
• Summer bank holiday: August 3 (Monday)
• St Andrew’s Day: November 30 (Monday)
• Christmas Day: December 25 (Friday)
• Boxing Day (substitute day): December 28 (Monday)

For 2026, Northern Ireland’s are:

• New Year’s Day: January 1 (Thursday)
• St Patrick’s Day: March 17 (Tuesday)
• Good Friday: April 3 (Friday)
• Easter Monday: April 6 (Monday)
• Early May bank holiday: May 4 (Monday)
• Spring bank holiday: May 25 (Monday)
• Battle of Boyne (Orangemen’s Day): July 13 (Monday)
• Summer bank holiday: August 31 (Monday)
• Christmas Day: December 25 (Friday)
• Boxing Day (substitute day): December 28 (Monday)

Substitute days happen when a regular bank holiday lands on a weekend. For example, these days, like Boxing Day in 2026, typically occur on a Monday.

READ MORE: Air India flight saw fuel switches turned off before tragic crash, report claimsREAD MORE: ‘Doctors kept saying I was stressed – but I actually have an overlooked condition’

While many people relish the day off on a bank holiday, it’s vital to remember that you’re not always guaranteed to get paid leave. It’s worth having a chat with your employer about your options.

Bank holidays can also impact how and when benefits are paid. If your payment date falls on a weekend or bank holiday, you’ll likely receive your money the working day before. However, this may differ for the Child Benefit.

You can visit the Government’s website for further information on upcoming bank holidays and benefits payment information.

READ MORE: Evening habit linked to higher diabetes and heart disease risks

Full list of previous England and Wales bank holidays in 2025:

So far in 2025, there have been five bank holidays. They include:

• New Year’s Day: January 1 (Wednesday)
• Good Friday: April 18 (Friday)
• Easter Monday: April 21 (Monday)
• Early May bank holiday: May 5 (Monday)
• Spring bank holiday: May 26 (Monday)

PA Media

Tory welfare proposals

United States President Donald Trump’s big tax and spending bill has faced backlash from both Democrats and fiscal hawks in his own party. But one proposal that has received rare bipartisan support from the start — eliminating taxes on tips.

The Senate bill passed on Tuesday, which mirrors the House bill passed last month, would deliver this campaign promise from Trump and had also been proposed by his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris.

The House plan lets workers deduct all reported tips from their taxable income, while the Senate version sets limits — $18,500 for individuals or $25,000 for joint filers — and phases it out for higher earners. The tax break would expire at the end of 2028.

If this bill passes, filers could deduct some or all of those tips starting in 2026.

Economists forecast that cutting tax on tips could increase the federal deficits by $100bn over the next decade.

Many restaurant workers continue to earn the federal tipped minimum wage, or subminimum wage, of just $2.13 per hour nationally. It is slightly higher in places like New York at $3.55 per hour. The law assumes that tips will bridge the gap to reach the $7.25 federal minimum wage.

A survey cited by the White House and conducted by a fintech firm found that 83 percent of restaurant workers support a no-tax-on-tips policy. Trump’s plan has been endorsed by the National Restaurant Association.

“The inclusion of the No Tax on Tips and No Tax on Overtime provisions recognises the value of our dedicated workforce. More than two million tipped servers and bartenders stand to benefit, while the overtime measure rewards the commitment of over 13 million hourly team members across the sector,” Michelle Korsmo, president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

The bill at the surface promises to put more money in the pockets of servers, bartenders, and other tipped workers. But it has been criticised by worker-centric advocacy groups and restaurant workers themselves, who caution against embracing it too quickly because it also comes with cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, which workers in the restaurant industry disproportionately rely on.

“That is like one of like the biggest fears I have right now. I rely on SNAP myself. I rely on Medicaid. At one point, I didn’t have insurance because of the whole sub-minimum wage, ” Jessica Ordenana, a server at a Chili’s Restaurant in Queens, New York told Al Jazeera.

According to One Fair Wage, about 66 percent of tipped workers in the US don’t earn enough to pay federal income tax, so eliminating tax on tips wouldn’t help the majority of restaurant workers.

To put this in perspective, a worker earning $2.13 per hour, working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks, would earn just $4,430.40 annually. Employers are legally required to make up the difference if tips don’t bring workers to $7.25/hour, totalling $15,078 per year. Federal income taxes must be paid by those who make more than $14,600 annually. Many workers still fall short due to inconsistent schedules and unreliable tipping.

Work requirements complications

Restaurant tipped workers overwhelmingly rely on services like SNAP and Medicaid, and will now face new work requirements to get them.

For instance, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” includes a Medicaid work requirement that obligates able-bodied adults aged 19 to 64 to work at least 80 hours per month to remain eligible.

For many restaurant workers, this is simply not feasible. Not because of unwillingness, but because their hours depend on consumer demand.

According to Harvard Kennedy School’s The Shift Project, which studies workplace trends, one in five service sector workers reported having not as many hours as they would like and saw a 34 percent fluctuation in the number of hours week to week.

“I’m actually having a hard time at Chili’s because they went from giving me my full like four or five days a week, to now just one day a week. It really varies week to week,” Ordenana said.

“When I ask for another day on the schedule [the manager] tells me, yeah, yeah sure. And then they don’t even put me on the schedule. So last week, I didn’t work at all,”  Ordenana said.

Demand for eating out has started to slump as Americans tighten purse strings in the face of a slowing economy and uncertainty over the impact of Trump’s tariffs.

Consumer Price Index data showed that spending on eating out was flat for three months from February to April and has started to decline heading into the middle of the year.

Consumer spending is projected to drop by 7 percent over the middle of the year, according to KPMG’s Consumer Pulse report.

As a result, One Fair Wage estimates that 45 percent of restaurant workers currently enrolled in Medicaid could lose their health insurance because of the possible downturn in hours because of slumping demand.

“More tipped restaurant workers would lose their Medicaid than would gain small tax benefits. This is not the right solution,” Saru Jayaraman, founder of the advocacy group One Fair Wage told Al Jazeera.

“Why are these workers on Medicaid to begin with? Because they earn a sub-minimum wage and can’t afford to take care of themselves.”

SNAP benefits face a similar threat. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, forecasts that the tax bill could lead to as many as 11 million people, including restaurant workers, losing access to critical benefits. The House bill would cut $300bn from SNAP over the next 10 years and the Senate bill would cut $211bn.

“Those cuts have to come out of benefits or eligibility. There is just no way that cuts to administrative costs, to streamline waste, fraud, and abuse, or whatever the talking points are about thinking. Those are benefits to eligible people. To achieve that kind of savings, you have to cut benefits to people. There’s no way around it. And that’s devastating,” Ed Bolen, director of SNAP State Strategies at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told Al Jazeera.

Nationwide, 18 percent of restaurant workers rely on SNAP benefits, including Ordenana.

“How am I going to eat? How am I gonna survive? How am I going to pay rent? And then on top of that, I might lose benefits? How is this happening in America?”  Ordenana asked rhetorically.

IOWA CITY, Iowa — A powerful U.S. senator on Tuesday called on the Trump administration to fix a growing backlog and longtime management problems at the program that promises benefits when police and firefighters die or become disabled in the line of duty.

Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits program is failing the spouses and children of deceased and disabled first responders and needs new leadership. He said the mismanagement has caused significant hardship for grieving families, who often experience yearslong delays in processing and approving claims.

“This is absolutely unacceptable,” he wrote in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, in which he suggested she consider replacing longtime program leader Hope Janke.

Grassley’s letter comes days after The Associated Press published an investigation detailing the claims backlog at the program, which provides a nearly $450,000 one-time payment to the families of deceased and disabled officers and firefighters in addition to education benefits.

The AP found dozens of families are waiting five years or more to learn whether they qualify for the life-changing payments, and more are being denied. As of late April, nearly 900 claims had been pending for more than one year, more than triple the number from five years ago, with a small number languishing for a decade.

Grassley cited a Government Accountability Office report issued last year that detailed deficiencies in the program’s management dating back to 2009. He said the program had failed to make changes recommended by outside reviewers but that “government bureaucrats” such as Janke have never been held accountable.

Janke has not responded to AP emails seeking comment, including one Tuesday. A request for comment to the DOJ wasn’t immediately returned.

DOJ officials said earlier this year that they are adopting several recommendations from the GAO, including improvements to make the program’s electronic claims management system more user-friendly. They say they are responding to a surge of claims after Congress has made more categories of deaths and injuries eligible for benefits.

Grassley demanded the DOJ provide updates and documents within two weeks related to the status of those changes.

Texas widow Lisa Afolayan, who is still fighting the program for benefits 16 years after her husband died while training for the Border Patrol, welcomed Grassley’s oversight of the program.

“We need movement. We need change and not only for my family,” she said. “They’ve lost sight of why the program was started.”

Foley writes for the Associated Press.