Hiltzik

I may be revealing a secret cherished by columnists the world over, but I admit that among the columns we relish writing the most fall into the “I told you so” genre.

Case in point: In April last year, in a column about the gambling mess ensnaring Shohei Ohtani’s then-interpreter, I warned that the pro sports leagues’ enthusiastic embrace of betting would inevitably produce a major scandal.

“It might not surface in the next months or even years,” I wrote, “but it will happen.”

The calendar, as it turned out, ticked over at 19 months. Last Thursday, federal prosecutors charged National Basketball Assn. player Terry Rozier and former NBA player and assistant coach Damon Jones with fraud and money laundering in connection with a scheme to fix bets on NBA games. Portland Trail Blazers head coach Chauncey Billups was charged in a separate indictment linking him to a Mafia scheme to fix poker games; Jones was also named in that indictment.

The NBA has placed Billups and Rozier on leave. They’re both due to appear in federal court in Brooklyn over the next few weeks to enter pleas, though both have asserted their innocence.

It may not be easy for the league to wash its hands of this mess. All the professional sports leagues spent years shunning gambling as a threat to their public image of integrity before embracing the siren call of big-time sports betting, bringing gambling companies and their ever-increasing customer base into their tents. But the NBA was ahead of the crowd.

In a 2014 op-ed, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver effectively cried “uncle” in the league’s battle against gambling.

“For more than two decades,” he wrote, “the National Basketball Association has opposed the expansion of legal sports betting, as have the other major professional sports leagues in the United States.” The leagues supported a 1992 federal law prohibiting sports betting except in grandfathered venues, such as Las Vegas.

They took a stern position against players and personnel caught betting on their games and their sports, dating to 1919 and the so-called Black Sox scandal, in which eight members of the Chicago White Sox were accused of throwing the World Series for the benefit of a gambling ring. Major League Baseball hired an austere federal judge, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, as its commissioner and gave him unchecked authority to clean up the game. He banned the eight players from baseball forever.

In recent times, Silver observed in his op-ed, the American appetite for sports betting has only risen. Accordingly, he called for legalizing the practice so it could be “brought out of the underground and into the sunlight where it can be appropriately monitored and regulated.”

(The 1992 law was overturned by the Supreme Court, and legalized sports betting spread coast to coast.)

Given the subsequent developments, one can tag Silver for his childlike innocence in counting on the government to regulate an industry collecting billions of dollars a year from millions of users while operating with a legal imprimatur.

Silver wrote that among his “most important responsibilities as commissioner of the N.B.A. is to protect the integrity of professional basketball and preserve public confidence in the league and our sport.”

When I asked the NBA if Silver has had second thoughts about his 2014 op-ed, the league replied, “We continue to believe that a legal, regulated, and monitored sports betting market is far superior to an illegal one operating underground,” and suggested that a single federal regulator would be preferable to the existing state-by-state patchwork, though the activities alleged in the federal indictments almost surely would be crimes in any state. Silver did say during a broadcast interview Friday that the case gave him “a pit in my stomach.”

The league’s ability to monitor the behavior of its own people is questionable. Consider a March 23, 2024, Charlotte Hornets game against the New Orleans Pelicans. According to the indictment, Rozier let the gambling conspirators know that he would take himself out of the game early, allowing them to profit from bets that his stats would fall short of bookmakers’ expectations.

The NBA, alerted by sports wagering companies to “aberrational behavior” involving Rozier in the game, investigated but later said it could find any “violation of NBA rules.”

The NBA can hardly claim to have been blindsided by the new indictments. Only last year, another federal gambling case erupted involving NBA games.

In that case, prosecutors alleged that a gambler named Ammar Awawdeh forced then-Toronto Raptors player Jontay Porter to take himself out of a game early. That led gamblers who knew of the arrangement to bet that his stats for the game would fall short of expectations; those insiders made more than $100,000 on their bets, the prosecutors charged.

According to text messages filed with the 2024 indictments, Awawdeh acknowledged “forcing” Porter to participate in the scheme to help clear some of his gambling debts.

Awawdeh engaged in plea negotiations in the case, but the outcome couldn’t be determined. Porter pleaded guilty to related federal fraud charges, and is scheduled to be sentenced in December. The NBA has banned Porter for life.

Awawdeh was also named in last week’s indictment over the alleged poker scam.

In recent years, the pro leagues have cozied up to the gambling industry, claiming that their interest is merely “fan engagement” — that is, keeping TV viewers in front of their sets even during blowout games.

Only 11 states bar sports gambling today. They include the customary anti-gambling holdouts Utah and Hawaii, and California, where ballot measures to legalize sports gambling were defeated in 2022. As I mentioned in 2024, the perils of this expansion are manifest.

They’ve created a new underclass of gambling addicts while largely failing to fulfill their advocates’ assurances that state-sponsored and regulated gambling would produce a new, risk-free revenue stream for state and local budgets. The outcomes of some games have come under suspicion even where no evidence of fixing has been found.

The leagues have gone beyond just tolerating gambling; they’ve made partnership and sponsorship deals with the major sports gambling companies. The two leading companies, FanDuel and DraftKings, are official corporate gambling partners of the NBA, National Football League and Major League Baseball.

During broadcasts and steaming of games, it’s common to see in-game statistical projections on-screen — what are the chances of this hitter striking out, or hitting a home run, for instance.

During the seventh inning of Game 2 Saturday, Fox flashed a projection that there was a 36% chance that Yoshinobu Yamamoto would pitch 9+ innings. (He went the distance.)

The only reason to offer such projections is to feed the appetite for in-game proposition, or “prop,” bets. These are fundamentally bookmakers’ estimates. They don’t tell ordinary viewers anything they need to know to enjoy the coming innings, but do give bettors something to chew on before putting money down on the proposition “will Yamamoto pitch a complete game?”

In-game prop bets, as it happens, are like heroin to the vulnerable, offering instant gratification (or dismay). They “may be associated with risky gambling behavior,” according to the National Council on Problem Gaming. Draftkings heavily promotes prop bets on its sportsbook web page.

In a memo issued Monday, the NBA singled out prop bets as trouble spots: “In particular,” the memo says, “proposition bets on individual player performance involve heightened integrity concerns and require additional scrutiny.”

The major gaming companies have rolled out new ways to keep bettors betting. Smartphone apps, for example. In the old days no one could place a legal sports bet without traveling to Las Vegas, a built-in curb on problem gambling. Today, anyone with a smartphone can place a bet, often without certifying their age or financial resources.

“The advent of smartphones in 2007 and the Supreme Court decision in 2018 opened the door to fully frictionless, 24/7 legal gambling,” problem gambling experts Jonathan D. Cohen and Isaac Rose-Berman wrote recently.

I asked FanDuel and DraftKings if they accepted any responsibility for problem gaming in the U.S. DraftKings didn’t reply. A spokesman for FanDuel told me by email that the company “takes problem gambling seriously and continually works to identify at-risk behavior … including when a customer attempts to deposit significantly more than what they typically do,” or “excessive time on site, chasing losses or signals from customer service interactions.” In those cases, the company sometimes imposes deposit limits or timeouts or can exclude the user entirely.

That brings us to the latest indictments. The feds identified seven NBA games in 2023 and 2024, including the 2023 game in which Rozier allegedly tipped confederates to his decision to bench himself.

Among the others were a 2023 Trail Blazers game in which gamblers were tipped that the team would sit its best players so it would lose, thereby acquiring a better position in the upcoming NBA draft; and two Lakers games in which Jones allegedly tipped gamblers that star LeBron James, a friend since they played together on the Cleveland Cavaliers, was hurt and wouldn’t be playing.

“Get a big bet on Milwaukee tonight,” Jones allegedly told a contact before the first game, against the Milwaukee Bucks. James sat it out and the Lakers lost. James isn’t identified by name in the indictment, but its description of his roles helped identify him. James hasn’t made a public comment about the case, but he hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing.

Can anything stem this tide? The smart bet at this moment is “no.” There’s just too much money riding on the continued expansion of sports betting: DraftKings has more than doubled its revenue since 2022, reaching $4.8 billion last year, and nearly doubling its monthly average users to 3.7 million. FanDuel is owned by a British gambling conglomerate, so its U.S. sports revenue is difficult to parse.

That’s a lot of money to be thrown around promoting more sports gambling, making it harder for governments to regulate and for sports leagues to turn up their noses at the income. Keeping their image for integrity intact in this world of greedy and needy players and voracious gamblers is only going to get harder.

It’s not my habit to preface my columns with “trigger alerts,” so this is a first:

If talking about circumcision makes you cringe, feel free to move along.

If, on the other hand, you wish to understand what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was talking about during a White House meeting Oct. 9 when he tried to connect circumcision with autism, follow along with me.

The offhand reference to circumcision’s possible role in autism by Kennedy, Trump’s secretary of Health and Human Services, is part and parcel of Kennedy’s documented assault on science-based medicine.

His campaign encompasses attacks on COVID-19 vaccines, which have been shown over the years to have saved millions of people from death, hospitalization or long-term disability; his firing members of professional advisory boards at his agency and replacing them with anti-vaccine activists; his promotion of unproven “cures” for vaccine-preventable diseases; and his inaction in the face of a nationwide surge in cases of measles, a disease that was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000.

Let’s pause for a few words about the broader consequences of the erosion of our public health infrastructure. It not only exposes Americans to more disease and more serious disease, but has profound economic effects.

That’s true worldwide, but especially in the U.S., which spends much more per capita on healthcare than other developed countries, for lower results. Undermining the existing system for partisan ends won’t make the picture look any lovelier.

“The U.S. health disadvantage threatens the country’s global competitiveness and national security, as well as the hopes and prospects of future generations,” according to a 2021 paper from the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency that Kennedy now leads.

“U.S. employers depend on a healthy workforce to maximize productivity and minimize healthcare costs,” the paper stated. “Population health also affects the consumer market, whereby the demand for nonessential products and services suffers when families are struggling with illnesses and much of their disposable income is required for medical expenses.”

The chaos imposed on our public health system under the Trump administration only intensifies the damage.

On Friday, hundreds of employees at Kennedy’s agency, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, abruptly received layoff notices. Some were hastily informed that their firings were erroneous, but the experience rattled the CDC, an agency tasked with overseeing the national response to seasonal respiratory illnesses at a time when those illnesses typically spike.

“The damage is beyond repair,” Demetre Daskalakis, who resigned as director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, a unit of the National Institutes of Health, over conflicts with Kennedy, told CNN. “Crippling CDC, even as a ploy to create political pressure to end the government shutdown, means America is even less prepared for outbreaks and infectious disease security threats.”

That brings us back to Kennedy’s preoccupation with autism. He has claimed that the autism rate is on the rise due to “environmental toxins” such as childhood vaccinations and the use of Tylenol — or acetaminophen, its generic name — by mothers during pregnancy.

As I’ve reported, however, the roots of the increase in reported autism rates in recent decades are well understood: They have much to do with a broader definition of autism, which is widely described today as “autism spectrum disorder,” and with improved access to screening and diagnostic services by formerly overlooked groups such as Blacks, Hispanics and other nonwhite cohorts.

Kennedy’s comment about circumcision came during a White House Cabinet meeting. At first, he and Trump traded misconceptions they had previously aired about Tylenol use by pregnant women — Trump asserting that “obviously,” the rise in autism rates is “artificially induced” and adding, “I would say don’t take Tylenol if you’re pregnant, and … when the baby is born don’t give it Tylenol.”

That advice dismayed physicians, who say that fevers during pregnancy are a greater risk for the unborn and that acetaminophen is safer than alternative fever-reducing medicines.

Kennedy then injected circumcision into the discussion. “There’s two studies that show children who were circumcised early have double the rate of autism,” he said. “It’s highly likely because they were given Tylenol.”

Unsurprisingly, Kennedy’s remark got extensive play in the news media, prompting him to try walking it back via a tweet on X. Rather than accept responsibility for his confusing words, he responded with Bondi-esque truculence, writing: “As usual, the mainstream media attacks me for something I didn’t say in order to distract from the truth of what I did say.”

He even took arms against the Murdoch-owned New York Post, which posted its story with the headline, “RFK Jr. says Tylenol after circumcisions linked to autism,” and proceeded to debunk the claim.

In trying to clarify his point, however, Kennedy dug himself a deeper hole. According to his tweet, the two studies he was referring to at the cabinet meeting were a Danish study from 2015 and a non-peer-reviewed preprint posted online in August, which refers to the Danish paper. Kennedy mischaracterizes both.

Contrary to Kennedy’s implication, the Danish study did not address the use of acetaminophen (called “paracetamol” in the paper) in connection with circumcision. The reason, its authors wrote, was that “we had no data available on analgesics or possible local anesthetics used during ritual circumcisions in our cohort, so we were unable to address the paracetamol hypothesis directly.”

They did note, however, that the acetaminophen theory had only “limited empirical support.” In other words, evidence was lacking. Anyway, the Danish study was criticized — in the same journal that had published it — for its reliance on a very small sample of children.

As for the preprint, contrary to Kennedy’s description, it did not identify the Danish paper as offering “the most compelling ‘standalone’ evidence” for an autism-acetaminophen link. That language referred to three studies, one of which was the Danish paper. Of the other papers, one was based on later interviews with parents. The other was a study of the effects of acetaminophen on 10-day-old mice, not human children.

I asked Kennedy’s agency to clarify his claim and to explain the discrepancies between his words and the papers themselves, but received no reply.

To summarize, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s top federal healthcare official, conjured up a connection between circumcision and autism via a relationship between circumcision and Tylenol that is unsupported by the research he cited. Indeed, the Danish paper describes the idea that boys undergoing circumcision invariably are given acetaminophen for pain as “a questionable assumption.”

In searching for empirical support for the acetaminophen theory, moreover, the Danish paper cited a 2010 paper funded by NIH that cautioned: “No evidence is presented here that acetaminophen in any way causes autism. … This hypothesis is largely based on multiple lines of often weak evidence.” Anyway, the paper was focused on a possible link between acetaminophen use and asthma, not autism.

Sadly, this sort of mischaracterization of research described as “a rigorous scientific framework” (RFK Jr.’s words) isn’t surprising coming from today’s Department of Health and Human Services. This is the agency, it may be recalled, that in May issued an “assessment” of the health of America’s children that cited at least seven sources that did not exist.

Nothing can stop unwary parents from relying on the judgment of Donald Trump or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to make healthcare decisions for their infants and children. But they should be warned: They do so at their own and their offsprings’ risk.

There’s some good news related to the Trump administration’s concerted attack on the Social Security Administration: Thus far, it doesn’t appear to have significantly affected the delivery of benefits. Checks are still going out and payments into beneficiaries’ bank accounts are still arriving on time.

Beyond that, however, the system is going to hell.

While Social Security appears to still be working well — superficially — under the surface the agency is suffering through a period of unprecedented turmoil. That’s the gist of a new report by Kathleen Romig and Devin O’Connor, Social Security experts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Under the Trump administration, Romig and O’Connor observe, the Social Security Administration’s regional office staff “have been mostly eliminated, robbing front-line staff of key supports.” Headquarters staffing has been cut by nearly half, including technology experts. Field office and call center staff also have been eviscerated.

Few departments within SSA have been spared — not even the office tasked with helping members of Congress assist their constituents with Social Security issues and helping to develop legislation.

The so-called Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs was cut to three employees from 50. Constituent caseworkers in congressional offices have been receiving “bounce-back emails and no-replies from legislative liaison offices that were previously responsive to congressional inquiries,” according to a letter sent by 50 Democratic House members to the SSA in July.

Even Republicans, who generally have been willing to go along with the administration’s rampage through agency budgets, raised the alarm about customer service failures at SSA, noting in a legislative markup that “there are significant service delivery challenges at SSA that are impacting critical services that millions of Americans count on. “

The agency’s staffing problems may be simmering under the surface, but it translates into chronically poor customer service. “Inadequate staffing at SSA directly harms the retirees, people with disabilities, and bereaved families the agency is responsible for serving,” Romig and O’Connor report.

“Because there aren’t enough workers in SSA’s local offices, applicants wait over a month on average for an appointment. Because there aren’t enough people answering the agency’s 800 number, most callers wait over two hours on average for an answer, as of early August,” they write. “Because there aren’t enough disability examiners, applicants wait eight months for an initial decision on their eligibility for disability benefits, with an additional seven-month wait for those who appeal.”

Meanwhile, more information has emerged about the incursion of untrained representatives of Elon Musk’s budget-cutting DOGE service into Social Security’s most carefully guarded databases. The outcome has been the exposure of workers’ and beneficiaries’ private personal information to outsiders, all without adequate oversight.

I’ve been following Trump’s campaign against Social Security from the outset. Although Trump has promised repeatedly that “we’re not touching Social Security,” actions speak louder than words, and his unconcern about the program, if not his outright hostility, have been screaming from the rooftops.

Among the weapons Trump could use to undermine the program, as I wrote, was “starving the program of administrative resources — think money and staff.” As it happened, Sure enough, within a month of Trump’s inauguration, the program announced plans to reduce its employee base to 50,000 from 57,000.

Its press release about the reduction referred to the program’s “bloated workforce.” That sounded like a cheap gag, since the truth is that the agency has been hopelessly understaffed for years.

The DOGE team showed its ignorance and incompetence at every turn, issuing inaccurate assertions about fraud at Social Security and then instituting operational changes that had no effect on fraud but inconvenienced thousands of beneficiaries. In March, for example, a DOGE employee went on Fox News with the claim that 40% of phone calls to the agency to change direct deposit information came from fraudsters. As a result, the agency mandated that such changes had to be made in person or online.

The true statistic misinterpreted by DOGE was that 40% of direct deposit fraud is connected with phone calls, not that 40% of all calls to change bank information is fraudulent. After the dime dropped at DOGE, the restriction was rescinded.

Since then, the Trump administration has acted from time to time as if the Social Security Administration is an arm of the White House. In March, it shut down SSA services in Maine because the state’s governor had challenged Trump face-to-face over his policies. (The decision was promptly reversed, but then-Acting Commissioner Leland Dudek admitted that he had taken the step in retaliation for the governor’s conflict with Trump.)

In April, Trump tried to dragoon Social Security into his anti-immigrant campaign by declaring some 6,300 purportedly illegal immigrants to be “dead” in program records, even though they were very much alive. The administration said its goal was to deny the workers benefits, though under the law noncitizens without legal residency in the U.S. can’t collect benefits, even if they’ve made payroll contributions to the program.

The biggest threat to the public’s confidence in Social Security may be the administration’s raid on its secure databases, starting with a rampage by DOGE documented by then-Chief of Staff Tiffany Flick.

More has come out since Flick filed her account in court. Last month, Chuck Borges, formerly the program’s chief data officer, filed a whistleblower affidavit outlining his concerns about “serious data security lapses, evidently orchestrated by DOGE officials, currently employed as SSA employees, that risk the security of over 300 million Americans’ Social Security data.”

DOGE, Borges reported, created “a live copy of the country’s Social Security information” and placed it in a digital platform that could be easily accessed by those without authorization.

At issue is the so-called NUMIDENT database, which includes the “name, … place and date of birth, citizenship, race and ethnicity, parents’ names and social security numbers, phone number, address, and other personal information” of every applicant for a Social Security card.

“Should bad actors gain access to this cloud environment,” Borges asserts, “Americans may be susceptible to widespread identity theft, may lose vital healthcare and food benefits, and the government may be responsible for re-issuing every American a new Social Security Number at great cost.”

Trump has instituted the largest staffing cut in Social Security history, while the caseload per employee is higher than ever

(Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

A federal court shut that access and activity down. But in June it was overruled by the Supreme Court, which unaccountably granted DOGE members access to the agency database “in order for those members to do their work.”

SSA didn’t respond to my request for comment on these issues or on increasing concern about the program’s functioning under its recently installed commissioner, Frank Bisignano.

Bisignano has been issuing self-congratulatory press releases boasting about improvements to customer service metrics at the agency — for example, phone answer times cut to an average of six minutes, down from 30 minutes last year. A press release issued in July attributed the improvement to “focused technology enhancements and process engineering.”

In fact, according to Romig and O’Connor, it’s more likely that the improvement happened because the agency reassigned 1,000 staffers from field offices, where they served clients face-to-face, to answering phones. The reassignments, Romig and O’Connor observed, “likely is coming at a steep cost to the rest of the agency’s work.”

At least 2,000 field office employees already had been pushed out by DOGE, so removing an additional 1,000 workers from the field only “deepens problems for people seeking in-person service — which were already considerable.”

Indeed, back in April the agency itself acknowledged that more than three dozen field offices around the country were in dire condition, suffering staff losses of 25% to 33% from DOGE’s “voluntary” resignation program that resulted in the loss of more than 7,000 workers overall, or 13% of the payroll.

Earlier this year, DOGE listed 47 Social Security offices due for closing, though it is not clear how many have actually been shuttered this year or what the schedule is for closing the rest.

Over the last decade or so, Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been wringing their hands over what they say is Social Security’s impending fiscal crisis, caused by the exhaustion of its trust fund reserve sometime in the next decade. But that’s still the subject of conjecture.

What’s more certain is that the congressional cheeseparing and the DOGE raid that have produced the largest staffing cut in the program’s history — at a time when its caseload is at record size and is destined to grow even further — loom as a greater threat to most workers and beneficiaries.

“To raise customer service to acceptable levels, Congress must not only provide SSA with sufficient funding but also forcefully push back against the Administration’s current mismanagement of its existing resources,” Romig and O’Connor maintain.

They’re right. Isn’t it time for Capitol Hill to take firm, bipartisan action to protect America’s most important government service from its enemies?

It’s probably safe to say that almost no one following the news believes that Donald Trump has a solid, defensible reason to fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook, as he purported to do Monday, notwithstanding his assertion that she is guilty of “potentially criminal conduct.”

It’s not only that the charge she falsified information on mortgage applications is unproven, or that even on their face the accusations are thinner than onion-skin paper.

It’s that Trump has telegraphed his true objective loud and clear virtually from the inception of his current term: to destroy the Fed’s independence so he can force it to act in accordance with what he sees as his immediate political advantage, chiefly by cutting interest rates at a time when that would be economically irrational.

He has pursued this objective in several ways. He has consistently denigrated the work of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, questioning why Powell was ever appointed (and forgetting that he was the president who appointed Powell).

He has carried on about the cost of a renovation of the Fed’s Washington headquarters building, even misrepresenting the cost and nature of the project, suggesting that it points to Powell’s managerial ineptitude.

And now he’s trying to fire Cook, one of Powell’s supporters on the Fed board. Whether he can do so in the face of Cook’s refusal to go is unclear, and likely to be judged on by the Supreme Court.

That leads us to the principle of Federal Reserve independence and its critical importance for the health of the U.S. economy.

The Fed isn’t the only central bank that cherishes its independence. Most central banks in developed countries do too, although they solidified their status at different times — the Bank of England gaining operational independence over monetary policy in Britain only in 1997.

To be fair, the character of central bank independence has always been murky. “Central banks do not and should not operate in a vacuum,” Tobias Adrian and Ashraf Khan of the International Monetary Fund observed in 2019, acknowledging that “as public institutions, central banks should be held properly accountable to lawmakers and to society.”

Indeed, to paraphrase Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley, throughout its own history the Fed, like the Supreme Court, has “followed the election returns.”

That is, it’s rare for the central bank to range too far from what the public expects from government economic management. In any event, the Fed is a creation of Congress, which could theoretically expand or narrow its monetary policy authority and structure its board to make it more responsive to partisan politics.

The consensus among economists is that doing so would be unwise. Political leaders who have made their central banks subservient to their own policies have almost invariably learned the consequences the hard way, as economists across the economic spectrum observe.

“If a legislature or executive can order the central bank to print money,” wrote Thomas L. Hogan of the conservative American Institute for Economic Research in 2020, “then the government can spend without limit …which can lead to hyperinflation and economic disaster as seen in countries such as Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and Argentina.”

That’s a lesson that economists began urging on Trump as he stepped up his attacks on the Fed. “No one’s claiming that central bankers are going to be perfect at their jobs,” Peter Conti-Brown of the Wharton School said recently. “What we’re saying is that they’re going to be better than the alternative. The alternative is setting interest rate policy from the Oval Office, according to the whims of whatever the president wants to see that day. That’s the main alternative to central banking. And that’s what’s under threat today.”

The United States also learned the value of an independent Fed the hard way. For more than three decades after its creation in 1913, the Fed was largely a handmaiden of the U.S. Treasury; the Treasury secretary and comptroller of the currency were ex officio members of its board, and the Treasury secretary presided over its meetings.

That version of the Fed proved unequal to managing macroeconomic policy as the Great Depression deepened. It had few powers with which to set policy, especially with Franklin Roosevelt taking the reins of economic policy in his own hands.

FDR unilaterally took the U.S. off the gold standard in 1933. He would set the price of gold every morning with aides at his bedside, prompting the British economic sage John Maynard Keynes to complain directly to Roosevelt that “the recent gyrations of the dollar” looked to him “like a gold standard on the booze.”

Roosevelt eventually gave up on manipulating the price of gold and consequently the value of the dollar. He also recognized that the nation needed a firmer, professional hand on the monetary faucet. The solution came from the progressive-minded Utah banker Marriner Eccles, whom FDR tasked with remaking the Fed.

Eccles is almost entirely unknown to the public, but he’s revered among economic policy wonks — which explains why his name is on the Fed headquarters building. After FDR appointed him to head the Federal Reserve Board, Eccles oversaw the drafting of the Banking Act of 1935, which centralized monetary policy in the Fed board and gave it new powers to manage the money supply. Eccles remained the board’s chairman until 1948 and remained a board member until 1951.

Despite those reforms, however, the Fed remained tied to political imperatives, chiefly the financing of America’s fiscal needs during World War II, policies firmly under the control of the Treasury. “We are not masters in our own house,” one Fed bank governor lamented.

That began to change in 1950, when the process of paying for war expenses had triggered an inflationary spiral. The consumer price index rose by 17.6% in 1946-47 and another 9.5% the following fiscal year, thanks in part by the end of wartime price controls and the “pegging” of long-term treasury bond rates at 2.5%.

The onset of the Korean War in 1950 threatened more inflation. President Truman insisted on leaving the peg at 2.5% in order to limit the cost of government spending on the new war. Eccles and others on the Fed board feared, however, that keeping the rate from rising above 2.5% would require the Fed to keep buying T-bonds, which pumped more dollars into the money supply and fueled inflation. The Fed wanted to allow rates to rise, which was anathema to the White House.

This concern placed the Fed in open conflict with Truman and his Treasury secretary, his crony John Wesley Snyder. The Fed and Snyder engaged in increasingly acrimonious meetings, after one of which the White House issued a communique that falsely stated that the Fed had agreed to follow the administration’s demands. The Fed then issued its own statement, directly contradicting Truman’s.

Truman maintained publicly that keeping rates low was crucial for the fight against communism. “I hope the Board will … not allow the bottom to drop from under our securities,” Truman said, referring to the decline of treasury prices if the board let rates rise. “If that happens, that is exactly what Mr. Stalin wants.” Eccles, for his part, told Congress that if the Fed were forced to maintain the 2.5% peg, that would make the Fed itself “an engine of inflation.”

The war of words continued, until Assistant Treasury Secretary William McChesney Martin took over negotiations with the Fed from Snyder, who was recovering from surgery. Martin broke the logjam. The result was the Treasury-Fed Accord of March 4, 1951, a landmark document in Federal Reserve history. The accord gave the Fed full rein to manage short-term interest rates in return for its keeping long-term rates within the peg until the end of that year.

Truman appointed Martin as Fed chairman a few weeks later; some saw the appointment as a Treasury takeover, but Martin proved to be a firm advocate of Fed independence. The accord, as explained by Robert L. Hetzel of the Richmond Fed and Ralph Leach, who personally witnessed the 1951 negotiations, “marked the start of the modern Federal Reserve System” and established the central bank’s “dual mandate” of promoting stable prices and maximizing employment.

That doesn’t mean that the Fed rigorously honored its hard-won independence. Fed Chairman Arthur Burns acceded to Richard Nixon’s urging to keep rates low in advance of the 1972 presidential election. It was a disastrous misstep. Inflation soared, especially during the Arab oil embargo, peaking at nearly 15% in 1980.

It fell to Paul Volcker, who became chairman in 1979, to use the Fed’s authority to slay the inflationary beast. Volcker drove the Fed’s key rate nearly to 20%, provoking a recession and a sharp rise in unemployment. But the inflation rate fell back to 3.8% by 1983 and as low as 1.1% in 1986. Volckeer’s actions arguably set the stage for Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980, but arguably he could not have taken the stringent measures needed to bring inflation down if he bowed to Carter’s electoral needs.

Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke set forth the perils of political influence on the Fed in 2020, warning that central banks subjected to political pressure might “overstimulate the economy to achieve short-term … gains.” Those may be “popular at first, and thus helpful in an election campaign, but they are not sustainable and soon evaporate, leaving behind only inflationary pressures that worsen the economy’s longer-term prospects.”

That’s the prospect facing the U.S. as Trump keeps trying to erode the Fed’s independence, insisting on a rate cut no matter the overall economic environment. As it happens, he may get the rate cut he desires, but only because his tariff and immigration policies are sapping America’s economic strength, producing a slump that warrants a reduction.

Where will we go from here? Powell’s term as Fed chair expires next May. He has been admirably protective of the bank’s independence while in office, but it’s a safe bet that his Trump-appointed successor won’t be so solicitous. Harder times for the Fed, and the economy, may lurk over the horizon.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a clear mind about the value of Social Security on Aug. 14, 1935, the day he signed it into law.

“The civilization of the past hundred years, with its startling industrial changes, has tended more and more to make life insecure,” he said in the Oval Office. “We can never insure 100 per cent of the population against 100 per cent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against … poverty-ridden old age.”

He called it a “cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete.” FDR envisioned further programs to bring relief to the needy and healthcare for all Americans. Some of that happened during the following nine decades, but the structure is still incomplete. And now, as Social Security observes the 90th anniversary of that day, the program faces a crisis.

If there are doubts about whether Social Security will survive long enough to observe its centennial, those have less to do with its fiscal challenges, the solutions of which are certainly within the economic reach of the richest nation on Earth. They have more to do with partisan politics, specifically the culmination of a decades-long GOP project to dismantle the most successful, and the most popular, government assistance program in American history.

From a distance, the raids on the program’s customer service infrastructure and the security of its data mounted by Elon Musk’s DOGE earlier this year looked somewhat random.

Fueled by abject ignorance about how the program worked and what its data meant, DOGE set in place plans to cut the program’s staff by 7,000, or 12 percent, and to close dozens of field offices serving Social Security applicants and beneficiaries. This at a time when the Social Security case load is higher than ever and staffing had already approached a 50-year low.

This might have been billed as an effort to impose “efficiency” on the system. But “a more accurate description,” writes Monique Morrissey of the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute, “is sabotage.”

That has been conservatives’ long-term plan — make interactions with Social Security more involved, more difficult and more time-consuming in order to make it seem ever less relevant to average Americans’ lives. Once that happened, the public would be softened up to accept a privatized retirement system.

Get the inefficient government off the backs of the people, the idea goes, so Wall Street can saddle up. George W. Bush’s privatization plan, indeed, was conceived and promoted by Wall Street bankers, who thirsted for access to the trillions of dollars passing through the system’s hands.

This was never much of a secret, but it simmered beneath the surface. But Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking at a July 30 event sponsored by Breitbart News, said the quiet part out loud. Referring to a private savings account program enacted as part of the GOP budget reconciliation bill Trump signed July 4, Bessent said, “In a way, it is a back door for privatizing Social Security.”

The private accounts are to be jump-started with $1,000 deposits for children born this year through 2028, to be invested in stock index mutual funds; families can add up to $5,000 annually in after-tax income, with withdrawals beginning when the child reaches 18, though in some cases incurring a stiff penalty.

I asked the Treasury Department for a clarification of Bessent’s remark, but didn’t receive a reply. Bessent, however, did try to walk the statement back via a post on X in which he stated that the Trump accounts are “an additive benefit for future generations, which will supplement the sanctity of Social Security’s guaranteed payments.”

Sorry, Mr. Secretary, no sale. You’re the one who talked about “privatizing Social Security” at the Breitbart event. You’re stuck with it.

Plainly, an “additive” benefit would have nothing to do with Social Security. How it would “supplement the sanctity” of Social Security benefits isn’t apparent from Bessent’s statement, or the law. Still, we can parse out the implications based on the long history of conservative attacks on the program.

In 1983, the libertarian Cato Journal published a paper by Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis, two policy analysts at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, titled “Achieving a ‘Leninist’ Strategy—i.e., for privatizing Social Security. From Lenin they drew the idea of mobilizing the working class to undermine existing capitalist structures.

Cato’s “Leninist” strategy paper explicitly advocated encouraging workers to opt out of Social Security by promising them a payroll tax reduction if they put the money in a private account.

IRAs, the authors asserted, would acclimate Americans to entrusting their retirements to a privatized system. They advocated an increase in the maximum annual contribution and its tax deductibility.

“The public would gradually become more familiar with the private option,” they wrote. “If that did happen, it would be far easier than it is now to adopt the private plan as their principal source of old-age insurance and retirement income.” In other words, it would provide a backdoor for privatizing Social Security.

(Germanis has since emerged as a cogent critic of conservative economics. Butler served at Heritage until 2014 and is currently a scholar in residence at the Brookings Institution; he told me in March that he still believes in parallel systems of private retirement savings as we have today, but as “add on” savings rather than a substitute for Social Security.)

Cato, a think tank co-founded by Charles Koch, has never relinquished its quest to privatize Social Security; the notion still occupies pride of place on the institution’s web page devoted to the program.

In 2005, when I attended a two-day conference on the topic at Cato’s Washington headquarters, Michael D. Tanner, then the chair of Cato’s Social Security task force, explained that Cato wasn’t concerned so much with the system’s fiscal and economic issues as with its politics. Its goal, he stated frankly, was to unmake FDR’s New Deal.

“This is about whether we redefine a relationship between individuals and government that we’ve had since 1935,” he told me. “We say that what was done was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. Our position is that people need to be responsible for their own lives.”

Yet forcing dramatic change on a program so widely trusted and appreciated is a heavy lift. That’s why Republicans have tried to downplay their intentions. Back in 2019, for instance, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) talked about the need to hold discussions about Social Security’s future “behind closed doors.”

Secrecy was essential, Ernst said, “so we’re not being scrutinized by this group or the other, and just have an open and honest conversation about what are some of the ideas that we have for maintaining Social Security in the future.”

As I observed at the time, that was a giveaway: The only time politicians take actions behind closed doors is when they know the results will be massively unpopular. Raising taxes on the rich to pay for Social Security benefits? That discussion can be held in the open, because the option is decisively favored in opinion polls. Cut benefits? That needs to be done in secret, because Americans overwhelmingly oppose it.

Curiously, Trump and his fellow Republicans seem to think that attacking Social Security is an electoral winner. Possibly they’ve lost sight of the program’s importance to the average American.

Among Social Security beneficiaries age 65 and older, 39% of men and 44% of women receive half their income or more from Social Security. In the same cohort, 12% of men and 15% of women rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.

Notwithstanding that reality, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently asserted that delays in sending out Social Security checks or bank deposits would be no big deal.

“Let’s say Social Security didn’t send out their checks this month,” Lutnick said. “My mother-in-law, who’s 94 — she wouldn’t call and complain…. She’d think something got messed up, and she’ll get it next month.” He claimed that only “fraudsters” would complain.

I had a different take. Mine was that even a 24-hour delay in benefit payments would have a cataclysmic fallout for the Republican Party. It would be front-page news coast to coast. There would be nowhere for them to hide.

While bringing misery to millions of Americans, a delay — which would be unprecedented since the first checks went out in 1940 — would be a gift for Democrats, if they knew how to use it.

Where will we go from here? The current administration has already done damage to this critically-important program. An acting commissioner Trump installed briefly interfered with the enrollment process for infants born in Maine—an important procedure to ensure that government benefits continue to flow to their families—because the state’s governor had pushed back against Trump in public.

In July, the newly-appointed Social Security commissioner, Frank Bisignano, allowed a false and flagrantly political email to go out to beneficiaries and to be posted on the program’s website implying that the budget reconciliation bill relieved most seniors of federal income taxes on their benefits. It did nothing of the kind.

To the extent that Social Security may face a fiscal reckoning in the next decade, the most effective fix is well-understood by those familiar with the program’s structure. It’s removing the income cap on the payroll tax, which tops out this year at $176,100 in wage income.

Up to that point, wages are taxed at 12.4%, split evenly between workers and their employers. Above the ceiling, the tax is zero. Remove the cap, and make capital gains, dividends and interest income subject to the tax, and Social Security will remain fully solvent into the foreseeable future.

Trump and his fellow Republicans don’t seem to understand how most Americans view Social Security: as an “entitlement,” not because they think they’re getting something for nothing, but because they know they’ve paid for it all their working lives.

As much as the system’s foes would like it to go away, as long as the rest of us remain vigilant against efforts to “redefine a relationship between individuals and government” established in 1935, we will be able to celebrate its 100th anniversary 10 years from now, in 2035.

One problem that promoters of cryptocurrencies have faced since the asset class first emerged is that its reputation stinks.

Crypto trading has become identified by regulators and in the public mind as a haven for scams, theft and other forms of sharp practice. The FBI, in its most recent annual report on cryptocurrency, found that crypto-related fraud has exploded. Criminality is “pervasive” in the field, the agency warned.

The elusive use case for crypto assets seemed to have been narrowed down to facilitating criminal fraud, ransomware attacks, drug and human trafficking.

Then came Donald Trump. During the presidential campaign and after his election, crypto promoters thought they were entering the nirvana of officially recognized legitimacy.

Trump signaled that he would end government regulatory initiatives on crypto, “in order to promote United States leadership in digital assets and financial technology while protecting economic liberty,” to quote the executive order he issued Jan. 23, effectively wiping out federal regulations on the class.

Things aren’t working out as they hoped. Since Trump returned to the presidency, his and his family’s involvement in crypto-related deals has critics charging that crypto has become an entirely new path for official corruption and conflicts of interest in the White House.

“Trump’s cryptocurrency ventures are nothing more than a fig leaf for payoffs from foreign nationals & foreign gov’ts,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) tweeted on May 7. Blumenthal’s target was the offer of a sit-down private dinner with Trump scheduled for May 22 at his Virginia golf club, and personal tours of the White House for the biggest buyers of $TRUMP, a “memecoin” assiduously promoted by Trump and his family.

The price of the coin soared to about $74 on Jan. 19, the day before Trump’s inauguration. It immediately fell in value, though its price has been propped up by the offer of the dinner and tours; the most recent quotes place it at about $13. The top 220 holders of the Trump coin, who are entitled to the dinner, spent nearly $148 million for the privilege, according to an estimate by Reuters.

More than half of the biggest holders appear to be foreign entities, according to an analysis by Bloomberg. That implies that the purchases might be designed to circumvent federal laws barring foreigners from making political contributions in the U.S.

Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts demanded that the federal Office of Government Ethics, an independent executive branch agency, open an inquiry into the “severe risk that President Trump and other officials may be engaging in ‘pay to play’ corruption by selling presidential access to individuals or entities, to include foreign nationals and corporate actors with vested interests in federal action, while personally enriching the President and his family.”

DWF, a crypto firm based in the United Arab Emirates, announced last month that it had bought $25 million in coins issued by the Trump-affiliated firm World Liberty Financial, in part to “enhance regulatory engagement with U.S. policymakers.” Freight Technologies, a Houston logistics company, announced April 30 that it had borrowed $20 million to buy Trump coins, calling the transaction “an effective way to advocate for fair, balanced, and free trade between Mexico and the US.”

The unease has spread to Republicans on Capitol Hill, who fear that the Trumps’ crypto deals will undermine their efforts to enact crypto-friendly regulations.

“This gives me pause,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), a leader in the legislative movement to pass a pro-crypto law, told NBC News. “Even what may appear to be ‘cringey’ with regard to meme coins, it’s legal, and what we need to do is have a regulatory framework that makes this more clear, so we don’t have this Wild West scenario.”

Trump’s activities already have derailed, if temporarily, the so-called GENIUS Act, which would regulate a form of cryptocurrency known as “stablecoins,” which are supposedly pegged to the value of underlying currencies such as dollars. Schiff and eight other Senate Democrats who had supported the measure have bailed on it, making passage in its current form virtually impossible.

Democrats in both chambers have introduced the “End Crypto Corruption Act,” which would bar the president, vice president, members of Congress and high-level executive branch appointees from issuing, sponsoring or endorsing any “cryptocurrency, meme coin, token, non-fungible token, stablecoin, or other digital asset that is sold for remuneration.”

Even some crypto promoters are no happier than the politicians. “They’re plumbing new depths of idiocy with the memecoin launch,” Nic Carter, a crypto investor and Trump supporter, told Politico.

As a crypto category, memecoins are disdained even by many participants in the field. They generally have even less utiilty or authenticity than mainstream cryptocurrencies, often originate as joke investments, and ride waves of pure hype. The Trump coin has no discernible value apart from its identification with Trump himself.

I asked the White House for comment on the accusations of corruption and received this reply from spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt: “President Trump is compliant with all conflict-of-interest rules, and only acts in the best interests of the American public.”

The memecoin isn’t Trump’s only venture into crypto, though some of his arrangements seem designed to give him plausible deniability if legal or ethics questions are raised. World Liberty Financial, which markets a crypto token designated $WLFI and a stablecoin designated USD1, is 60% owned by Trump and members of his family, who are entitled to up to 75% of the proceeds of sales of $WLFI.

The firm’s website features an image of Trump striking a heroic pose and says the WLFI token is “inspired by Donald J. Trump.” In the small print it asserts, however, that “any references to or quotes or imagery attributed to or associated with Donald J. Trump or his family members should not be construed as an endorsement or representation or warranty.”

Crypto investors really stepped up to the plate with political donations during the 2024 election cycle. Fairshake, the super PAC representing the class, spent nearly $41 million in contributions. That included $13 million to defeat two congressional candidates in Democratic primaries, Rep. Katie Porter (D-Irvine) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-New York). Both were known to favor stricter regulation of the asset class, and both lost their races.

The biggest crypto firms spent lavishly in 2023 and 2024 to fatten Fairshake’s war chest, which collected more than $162 million in that time frame; Coinbase contributed $46.5 million, Ripple Labs, $45 million and Andreessen Horowitz, a major crypto investor, $44 million. Much of the total was funneled to two other crypto-related political action committees, according to federal election records.

After the election, many of the firms, like more traditional businesses, made contributions of $1 million or more to Trump’s inauguration fund.

One can hardly deny that the crypto camp has gotten its money’s worth from the Trump administration so far. The Securities and Exchange Commission has dropped or deferred more than a dozen enforcement cases against Ripple, Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken and other crypto promoters.

The largest victory arguably belongs to Coinbase, the biggest crypto trading platform in the U.S. The SEC in 2023 charged the firm with running an unlawful trading exchange and marketing unregistered securities. The case reflected the SEC’s position that what crypto firms are marketing are securities by a different name, and thus need to be registered as securities so buyers and sellers get the same legal protections as stock and bond investors.

A federal judge in New York cleared the enforcement action to move ahead in 2024, after finding that the SEC had made a plausible case that Coinbase was operating illegally. The SEC dropped the case in February. Coinbase had asserted that the SEC was wrong “on the facts and the law,” and that “the case should never have been filed in the first place.”

Earlier this month, the agency settled its case against Ripple, which it had charged in 2020 with having raised $1.3 billion through unregistered securities. As part of the settlement, the SEC agreed to return to Ripple $75 million of a $125-million penalty it held in escrow. The settlement elicited a crisp rebuke from Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw, a member of the commission’s Democratic minority.

Crenshaw noted that the deal was part and parcel of the SEC’s effective abandonment of crypto regulation. “This settlement, alongside the programmatic disassembly of the SEC’s crypto enforcement program, does a tremendous disservice to the investing public,” she wrote.

That won’t be the end of the deregulation drive. On April 7, Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche — who was Trump’s defense attorney in the New York criminal case that resulted in guilty verdicts on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records — ordered an end to Justice Department regulatory cases based on interpreting crypto assets as securities or commodities. That closed down the government’s principal regulatory initiative against crypto promoters.

Blanche directed the DOJ’s Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit to “cease cryptocurrency enforcement,” and disbanded the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team, “effective immediately.”

There doesn’t seem to be any sign that Trump’s involvement with crypto will slow down even as he disembowels the government’s regulatory capacity over crypto ventures.

World Liberty Financial recently announced that Abu Dhabi would use its stablecoin to invest $2 billion in Binance, a multinational crypto firm that pleaded guilty and paid a $4.3-billion penalty in 2023 on charges of financial crimes including money laundering. Binance’s chief executive, Changpeng Zhao, also pleaded guilty and spent four months in U.S. prison.

Last month, the SEC put its civil case against Binance on hold for at least 60 days.

On its investor advice webpage, the SEC used to post a warning on its website about crypto. “Trendy investments are especially ripe for fraudsters so be aware there is a real risk of fraud,” it said. “Cryptocurrencies may be today’s shiny, new opportunity but there are serious risks involved.”

That page has been taken down.