WASHINGTON (AP) — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday that the Trump administration was committed to protecting Social Security hours after he said in an interview that a new children's savings program President Donald Trump signed into law “is a back door for privatizing Social Security.”
Bessent said Wednesday evening that the accounts created under Trump’s tax break-and-spending cut law “will supplement the sanctity of Social Security’s guaranteed payments.”
“This is not an either-or question: our Administration is committed to protecting Social Security and to making sure seniors have more money,” Bessent said in a post on X.
Bessent's remarks about privatizing Social Security, which he made at a forum hosted by Breitbart News, were striking after Trump’s repeated promises on the campaign trail and in office that he would not touch Social Security. It also reignited an issue that has dogged Republicans for years.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Democrats quickly seized on the comment as a sign the GOP wants to revive a dormant but unpopular push to privatize the long-running retirement program.
“A stunning admission,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said in a Senate speech. “Bessent actually slipped, told the truth: Donald Trump and government want to privatize Social Security.”
The idea of privatizing Social Security has been raised by Republicans before, but quickly abandoned. Millions of Americans have come to rely on the certainty of the federal program in which they pay into the system during their working years and then receive guaranteed monthly checks in their older age.
Privatization proposals would shift the responsibility for the retirement savings system away from the government and onto Americans themselves. Through personal savings accounts, people would need to manage their own funds, which may or may not be enough to live on as they age.
Under the GOP’s “big, beautiful bill,” as the law is called, Republicans launched a new children’s savings program, Trump Accounts, which can be created for babies born in the U.S. and come with a potential $1,000 deposit from the Treasury.
Much like an individual retirement account, the Trump Accounts can grow over time, with a post-tax contribution limit of $5,000 a year, and are expected to be treated similarly to the rules for an IRA, and can eventually be tapped for distribution in adulthood.
But Bessent on Wednesday allowed for another rationale for the accounts, suggesting they could eventually be the way Americans save for retirement.
“In a way, it is a back door for privatizing Social Security,” Bessent said while speaking about the program.
The Treasury Department later issued a statement that said, “Trump Accounts are an additive government program that work in conjunction with Social Security to broaden and increase the savings and wealth of Americans. Social Security is a critical safety net for Americans and always will be.”
Ever since the George W. Bush administration considered proposals to privatize Social Security more than 20 years ago, Republicans have publicly moved away from talking about the issue that proved politically unpopular and was swiftly abandoned.
In the run-up to the 2006 midterms, Democrats capitalized on GOP plans to privatize Social Security, warning it would decimate the program that millions of Americans have come to rely on in older age. They won back control of both the House and the Senate in Congress.
The Democrats warned Wednesday that Bessent's comments showed that Republicans want to shift the government-run program to a private one and are again trying to dismantle the retirement program that millions of Americans depend on.
“Donald Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent just said the quiet part out loud: The administration is scheming to privatize Social Security,” Tim Hogan, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement.
“It wasn’t enough to kick millions of people off their health care and take food away from hungry kids. Trump is now coming after American seniors with a ‘backdoor’ scam to take away the benefits they earned,” Hogan said.
The Social Security program has faced dire financial projections for decades, but changes have long been politically unpopular.
Social Security’s trust funds, which cover old age and disability recipients, will be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2034, according to the most recent report from the program’s trustees.
Those officials have said those findings underline the urgency of making changes to programs.
Trump, attuned to Social Security's popularity, has repeatedly said he would protect it.
Throughout his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly said he would “always protect Social Security” and said his Democratic opponents, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, would destroy the program.
During the 2024 primary, he accused other Republicans who have expressed support for raising the age for Social Security of being threats to the program.
Trump said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” in December after he won the presidential election that “we’re not touching Social Security, other than we might make it more efficient.”
His White House this year said Trump “will always protect Social Security.”
Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, a Wall Street veteran, was asked at his confirmation hearing in March about whether Social Security should be privatized. He said he’d “never heard a word of it” and “never thought about it.”
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a press conference after the trade talks between the US and China in Stockholm, Sweden, Tuesday, July 29, 2025. (Magnus Lejhall/TT News Agency via AP)
Federal immigration agents deployed to Minneapolis have used aggressive crowd-control tactics that have become a dominant concern in the aftermath of the deadly shooting of a woman in her car last week.
They have pointed rifles at demonstrators and deployed chemical irritants early in confrontations. They have broken vehicle windows and pulled occupants from cars. They have scuffled with protesters and shoved them to the ground.
The government says the actions are necessary to protect officers from violent attacks. The encounters in turn have riled up protesters even more, especially as videos of the incidents are shared widely on social media.
What is unfolding in Minneapolis reflects a broader shift in how the federal government is asserting its authority during protests, relying on immigration agents and investigators to perform crowd-management roles traditionally handled by local police who often have more training in public order tactics and de-escalating large crowds.
Experts warn the approach runs counter to de-escalation standards and risks turning volatile demonstrations into deadly encounters.
The confrontations come amid a major immigration enforcement surge ordered by the Trump administration in early December, which sent more than 2,000 officers from across the Department of Homeland Security into the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Many of the officers involved are typically tasked with arrests, deportations and criminal investigations, not managing volatile public demonstrations.
Tensions escalated after the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a 37-year-old woman killed by an immigration agent last week, an incident federal officials have defended as self-defense after they say Good weaponized her vehicle.
The killing has intensified protests and scrutiny of the federal response.
On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota asked a federal judge to intervene, filing a lawsuit on behalf of six residents seeking an emergency injunction to limit how federal agents operate during protests, including restrictions on the use of chemical agents, the pointing of firearms at non-threatening individuals and interference with lawful video recording.
“There’s so much about what’s happening now that is not a traditional approach to immigration apprehensions,” said former Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldaña.
Saldaña, who left the post at the beginning of 2017 as President Donald Trump's first term began, said she can't speak to how the agency currently trains its officers. When she was director, she said officers received training on how to interact with people who might be observing an apprehension or filming officers, but agents rarely had to deal with crowds or protests.
“This is different. You would hope that the agency would be responsive given the evolution of what’s happening — brought on, mind you, by the aggressive approach that has been taken coming from the top,” she said.
Ian Adams, an assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, said the majority of crowd-management or protest training in policing happens at the local level — usually at larger police departments that have public order units.
“It’s highly unlikely that your typical ICE agent has a great deal of experience with public order tactics or control,” Adams said.
DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a written statement that ICE officer candidates receive extensive training over eight weeks in courses that include conflict management and de-escalation. She said many of the candidates are military veterans and about 85% have previous law enforcement experience.
“All ICE candidates are subject to months of rigorous training and selection at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, where they are trained in everything from de-escalation tactics to firearms to driving training. Homeland Security Investigations candidates receive more than 100 days of specialized training," she said.
Ed Maguire, a criminology professor at Arizona State University, has written extensively about crowd-management and protest- related law enforcement training. He said while he hasn't seen the current training curriculum for ICE officers, he has reviewed recent training materials for federal officers and called it “horrifying.”
Maguire said what he's seeing in Minneapolis feels like a perfect storm for bad consequences.
“You can't even say this doesn't meet best practices. That's too high a bar. These don't seem to meet generally accepted practices,” he said.
“We’re seeing routinely substandard law enforcement practices that would just never be accepted at the local level,” he added. “Then there seems to be just an absence of standard accountability practices.”
Adams noted that police department practices have "evolved to understand that the sort of 1950s and 1960s instinct to meet every protest with force, has blowback effects that actually make the disorder worse.”
He said police departments now try to open communication with organizers, set boundaries and sometimes even show deference within reason. There's an understanding that inside of a crowd, using unnecessary force can have a domino effect that might cause escalation from protesters and from officers.
Despite training for officers responding to civil unrest dramatically shifting over the last four decades, there is no nationwide standard of best practices. For example, some departments bar officers from spraying pepper spray directly into the face of people exercising Constitutional speech. Others bar the use of tear gas or other chemical agents in residential neighborhoods.
Regardless of the specifics, experts recommend that departments have written policies they review regularly.
“Organizations and agencies aren’t always familiar with what their own policies are,” said Humberto Cardounel, senior director of training and technical assistance at the National Policing Institute.
“They go through it once in basic training then expect (officers) to know how to comport themselves two years later, five years later," he said. "We encourage them to understand and know their training, but also to simulate their training.”
Adams said part of the reason local officers are the best option for performing public order tasks is they have a compact with the community.
“I think at the heart of this is the challenge of calling what ICE is doing even policing,” he said.
"Police agencies have a relationship with their community that extends before and after any incidents. Officers know we will be here no matter what happens, and the community knows regardless of what happens today, these officers will be here tomorrow.”
Saldaña noted that both sides have increased their aggression.
“You cannot put yourself in front of an armed officer, you cannot put your hands on them certainly. That is impeding law enforcement actions,” she said.
“At this point, I’m getting concerned on both sides — the aggression from law enforcement and the increasingly aggressive behavior from protesters.”
Law enforcement officers at the scene of a reported shooting Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP Photo/Adam Gray)
Federal immigration officers confront protesters outside Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, Thursday, Jan. 15, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP Photo/Adam Gray)
People cover tear gas deployed by federal immigration officers outside Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, Thursday, Jan. 15, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP Photo/Adam Gray)
A man is pushed to the ground as federal immigration officers confront protesters outside Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, Thursday, Jan. 15, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP Photo/John Locher)
A woman covers her face from tear gas as federal immigration officers confront protesters outside Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, Thursday, Jan. 15, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP Photo/Adam Gray)
