Debunking Sam Seder

Addressing the predictions the Progressive commentator made regarding how the Trump Administration's policies would impact American society.

Mar 09, 2026

Now that it is the one-year anniversary of the third Left-Wing 1 vs. 20 Surrounded debate, hosted by Jubilee Media, my “Debunking the Left” series is back—finally. It explores the interesting direction of the claims Leftists have made since Surrounded launched. The first leftist, Dean Withers, focused his claims on not supporting Donald Trump from a moral standpoint. The second leftist, Steven Bonnell (aka Destiny), debated Republicans regarding Donald Trump as a candidate for the 2024 election. Since those two episodes were released, Donald Trump won the 2024 election, returning to the Presidency on January 20, 2025. After President Trump returned, Jubilee filmed their Surrounded debate in late January; it was released one year ago today. This time, the guest debater was Sam Seder.

Sam Seder is an actor and progressive political commentator who hosts the internet talk radio show The Majority Report with Sam Seder. He has been on YouTube for almost 16 years (since 2010) and is considered one of the most influential commentators in left-wing, progressive politics. He also famously was the first prominent political figure in the new social media landscape to promote citizen journalist Tim Pool, who would eventually become one of the largest voices in the online media landscape. As stated previously, Sam was selected as a guest debater for a Surrounded episode, it was called “1 Progressive vs. 20 Conservatives.”

Here is a clip of the opening intro from this episode:

I will be frank: the conservatives overall did not do their best in this episode. A few performed well, but in my opinion it was not the strongest group. Surprisingly, this had nothing to do with the debating skills of Mr. Seder. Sam Seder is not a professional debater; he is just a man very plugged into American politics. In turn, that means he is very plugged into the pledges made by President Trump’s campaign, which would then become the inevitable policies of the Trump Administration.

Throughout the entirety of the Surrounded debate, despite the claims Sam brought up, none of the Trump supporters could directly counter-argue. Most of the time, those who debated Sam focused on debating the idea of the claim rather than the claim itself. At the end of the debate, Sam Seder shared these closing thoughts about his experience:

I'm glad I was here. It was interesting, I know my questions were more sort of policy oriented—I think than maybe folks anticipated here—and I was a little bit surprised that there wasn't many people here who could address the policies. They were very, very, sure of themselves as to why they voted for Trump, but a lot of it was sort of…um…not material, in any way.

Fortunately, just like Mr. Seder, I am extremely plugged into current events in American politics. On the flip side—unfortunately for Mr. Seder—I am also an individual very educated on political affairs from the lens of public policy. I will make this pre-acknowledged caveat: Not EVERYTHING Mr. Seder addressed was incorrect; there were a few particular issues he was right about. That being said, there was simultaneously A LOT he got wrong too.

All will be discussed in today’s article, debunking Sam Seder.

Sam’s 1st Claim: Trump’s attacks on DEI hides his real goal, which is to give corporations more power.

What is interesting about this particular claim is that, if read carefully, you notice the core part isn’t really about DEI itself but more about the amount of “power” Trump is supposedly handing to corporations. Throughout this segment of the debate, almost none of the conservatives addressed that element of the claim and instead focused on DEI in corporate America. Sam Seder made it very clear that he was referring to the DEIA—Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility—in our federal government that President Trump revoked through Executive Order 14148, Executive Order 14151, Executive Order 14168, and Executive Order 17173.

I recently wrote about DEIA both in our government and in corporate America, and I realized that there were parts of DEIA that the Left and the Right both got correct and incorrect about the framework. While there have been instances of DEIA diverging into identity quotas, there have also been instances where the policy was genuinely beneficial on a non-identity-focused basis. Mr. Seder mentioned a couple of examples in the debate of DEI policies with which I do agree. For example, when Joe Biden was President, he signed Executive Order 14035 on June 25, 2021, which specifically targeted DEI initiatives in the federal workforce. One of those initiatives included guaranteeing that almost all internships in the federal government be paid, so people of low-income status could afford to prioritize an internship for a season to boost their career development. Unfortunately, this was revoked by President Trump, so this is an example of an initiative of which I wholeheartedly agree with Sam—it was wrong to remove.

However, as I mentioned, that is not the purpose of his claim. The true core is whether corporations will get more power under a Trump Presidency. It was not until the final debater of this segment—a man named Ben—asked Sam directly to expand on his claim (at 19:22):

BEN: So, I want a little bit more clarification because I don’t even know if we got it yet, on which part benefits corporations, like from your perspective.
SAM: Okay, so agencies—the US government agencies—the vast majority of them, what they function to do is inhibit corporations from essentially externalizing their costs onto Society. So, you know the example wo uld be you know I used it before but it’s a good one: I’m making Teflon C8 for instance. Okay and C8 is supposed to be burned because instead of like a deposit because it’s a forever chemical, and I can go out and instead of burning it—it’s too expensive to burn it—I’m going to dump it into a river, and the EPA comes in and says like, “You can’t do that, we’re going to fine you. You’re not allowed to do this,” but what the company is doing when they do that, is they’re going to take the profits that come with lowering their cost by dumping it into the river, and those costs are then born by everybody who lives around that river. They’re going to get cancer, they’re going to get gastrointestinal whatever it is, and society bears the cost of that.
BEN: Can you connect the dots for me though? Because it sounds like we’re talking about something completely different.
SAM: So, the DEIA stuff is just the beginning of demoralizing these (sic) agencies, and trying to to wreck them from the inside, it's all part of like Russell Vought's thing—the OMB, the whole schedule F where they get rid of civil servants, and and they demoralize people and they don't want them to be able to function.

Here is the thing: In terms of policy, Sam Seder was CORRECT about President Trump’s policy plans for reforming the federal government beyond the anti-DEI initiatives. On January 20, 2025, President Trump did reinstate Schedule F appointments (formally renamed to Schedule Policy/Career) via Executive Order 14171, revoking Biden-era protections and allowing agencies to reclassify up to 50,000 federal employees (about 2% of the workforce) in “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating” roles as at-will workers. These employees lose civil service protections, making them easier to fire for poor performance, misconduct, or “subverting Presidential directives.” The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) finalized the rule on February 6, 2026 (effective March 8, 2026), requiring agencies to petition for reclassifications, which the President would approve via further orders.

Sam was also correct about the power level Trump would grant—or rather, reduce—for federal agencies. The January 31, 2025, Executive Order 14192, which mandates a “10-for-1” rule: agencies must identify at least 10 existing regulations for repeal per every new one proposed, with a goal of “significantly less than zero” net regulatory costs for FY 2025. This exceeds the first-term “2-for-1” policy and targets rules deemed burdensome to businesses, innovation, or small enterprises.

That being said, that does not mean Sam’s perspective on Trump’s approach equates to it being “demoralizing.”

Sam Seder’s Misguided View on how the Executive Branch Operates

One of the most common critiques I have heard from the Left about Trump’s Presidency is his control of executive agencies. Multiple critics have advocated that said agencies “MUST remain independent” of the President. An observation I have noticed is that these critiques never seem to have any evidence to support their claim of this necessity for independence.

Here is the reason why that is: It’s because the evidence does not exist.

There is no legal court precedent, specific federal statute, or codified law in the U.S. Code explicitly mandating that independent executive agencies must maintain a certain level of independence from the Office of the President.

What President Trump is doing by correcting the Federal workforce via Schedule Policy/Career is merely exercising what is known as Unitary Executive Theory. This theory holds that the President of the United States possesses sole authority over the executive branch of the Federal Government. Supporters trace the theory’s origins to debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, particularly the Virginia Plan, which emphasized a single executive. While it has not been explicitly defined under American Common Law, there is a chance we might have a definitive ruling on this interpretation very soon. On September 22, 2025, the Supreme Court officially docketed the case Trump v. Slaughter (2025) that will consider the extent that Presidents have over Executive Independent Agencies, which could overturn a 90-year-old precedent laid out in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Oral arguments will be heard on December 8, 2025.

Then there is the element of how much regulatory power President Trump is choosing to reign in from these agencies. Once again, this is just him enforcing what is formally recognized under Constitutional Law. On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court published its landmark ruling on the constitutional limitations of the Administrative State in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case overruled a previous 40-year Supreme Court precedent of the doctrine known as the Chevron Deference. This allowed the Federal courts to historically defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers. Now with the Loper Bright ruling, the Court corrected itself by recognizing the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. So, the President attempting to deregulate agencies is merely just making sure they stay within statutory authority.

Sam is Wrong: Not everything Trump has done been “Pro-Corporation”

Sam’s hypothetical of what would come of a Trump Presidency has not been 100% in favor of giving more power to corporations. First there is Trump’s whole Tariff Policy from “Liberation Day,” which completely goes against the concept of free enterprise. Corporations would rather pursue the direction that is most profitable for their company, which is often antithetical to Trump’s protectionist approach.

Then just recently on January 7, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14372 “Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defense Contracting.” This order prohibits the underperforming contractors (as determined by the Secretary of War) from stock buybacks or dividends until issues are resolved. It also caps executive pay and ties incentives to delivery metrics, affecting megacorps like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. This EO will curb billions in shareholder returns, with investors expressing concerns about reduced attractiveness for talent and capital. The progressive Economic Policy Institute (EPI) views it as a step against corporate greed.

Later that same month, on January 20, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14376, “Stopping Wall Street from Competing with Main Street Homebuyers.” It directs agencies (e.g., HUD, VA, FHFA) to block federal financing, insurance, or sales of single-family homes to “large institutional investors.” This includes antitrust probes into acquisitions and “first-look” policies favoring owner-occupants. This populist move directly curbs corporate expansion into housing, countering the idea of blanket empowerment.

So, on the surface level, Sam was proven correct that some of Trump’s policies do give corporations more power. However, he misses the mark that it is a consequence of “demoralizing” executive agencies. The reality is President Trump is just running these agencies the way they are supposed to be constitutionally operated. Again, I agree with Sam partly that some DEIA initiatives should not have been removed. Yet to insist that is to explicitly favor a power boost to corporations is just not the full story.

Sam’s 2nd Claim: Unless you’re a Billionaire, a Religious Fundamentalist, or a Xenophobic Nationalist, voting for Trump was a mistake.

When I saw this debate, out of all four claims debated, this is probably the one that made me the most frustrated—not because of anything Sam said, but for how the conservatives chose to debate it. They honed in mainly on the “religious fundamentalism” aspect, but more from the perspective of ideological political theory rather than actual policy.

I interpreted this claim by Mr. Seder as being related to voting blocs—a group of voters strongly motivated by a specific common concern or group of concerns. Throughout the segment, none of the conservatives asked Sam how he was angling his claim. Is Sam implying either:

Are billionaires, religious fundamentalists, and xenophobic nationalists the voting blocs that gain MORE from a second Trump Presidency than any other?

Are billionaires, religious fundamentalists, and xenophobic nationalists the ONLY voting blocs that will reap benefits from a second Trump Presidency?

Are these groups even benefiting at all? Unfortunately, no one in that debate asked Sam to clarify the direction of his claim. Fortunately for me, this allows debunking from both angles:

Determining if those three Voting Blocs are gaining from the Trump Administration

The Billionaire Class

I will concede up front and agree with Mr. Seder that one of three groups he referenced are benefitting from the Trump Administration: Billionaires.

The best evidence to support this is President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, which extends corporate and individual tax cuts, adds estate tax exemptions of up to $15 million per person, and includes pass-through deductions that disproportionately benefit millionaires (half of which go to those earning over $1 million). Interestingly, out of the three groups Sam referenced, “billionaires” was the only one with objective classification. The latter two—religious fundamentalists and xenophobic nationalists—are highly subjective per Sam’s own standards. So, let’s figure out if they are “gaining” anything.

Religious Fundamentalists

For those unfamiliar with the term, fundamentalism is defined as “a tendency among certain groups and individuals that is characterized by the application of a strict, literal interpretation to scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, along with a strong belief in the importance of distinguishing one’s ingroup and outgroup, which leads to an emphasis on some conception of ‘purity’ and a desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed.” Religious fundamentalism specifically involves literal interpretations of sacred texts and a desire to return to perceived original principles.

This made up the majority of the debate on this claim. As mentioned earlier, the conservatives made this extra frustrating because none could explain away Sam’s reasoning to dispute his claims. The upside is that Sam did briefly expand on what he meant by religious fundamentalism gaining from voting for Trump—specifically in the case of so-called “Christian Nationalism,” which he explained at 22:45 to a Conservative named Mike:

MIKE: So, let’s tackle one aspect, religious fundamentalists. What benefit would religious fundamentalists get, and also can you define what is a Religious Fundamentalist?
SAM: Maybe you could say more like a Christian Nationalist in this instance. But things like you know uh, the attacks on trans folks, the attacks on a woman’s right to choose [abortion], uh the idea that we’re going to get stuff like an “enhanced RFRA”—which is going to mean that if you’re a pharmacist and you don’t want to provide birth control you may not have to—If you believe that uh public education uh we should take that money and and pour it into religious schools you’re going to you’re going to get a benefit out of a Trump Administration.

With all of this addressed let’s debunk each part of his claim.

There has been no “attack” on Transgender Americans

The term attack in this context is extremely objective, suggesting Transgender people have somehow become 2nd Class citizens and have lost civil liberties over the last year. None of that is true at all. Here is what has actually happened so far:

On first day back in office President Trump signed Executive Order 14168 “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which merely states that the Federal Government will only recognize the sexes, male and female, over the “infinite” gender identity spectrum.

On January 28, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14187, “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” All this executive order did was prohibit MINORS—Anyone under 18—from medically transitioning. The EO does state in this case anyone under 19 years of age, which makes sense given that these individuals do not get rushed into any life changing decisions. During the debate, Mr. Seder tried to minimize the issue by citing a recent Harvard 2025 study, which stated that 926 minors out 5.1 Million from 2018 to 2022 received cross-sex hormones (CHS).

This study, however, is greatly dishonest because it implies that medical consensus is not on the side of the critics of Pediatric Medical Transition for minors—and that those critics are the ones exaggerating the narrative that transitioning is happening to millions of children, which no one on that side has ever insinuated. Second, this study inappropriately calls the 1,000 minors number evidence that the instances are “rare”. Just because it is a small number relative to the larger sample, does not mean we should allow a continuation of a product that leaves that small number in medical peril.

Now what about transgender adults? Sam Seder brought up in the debate how President Trump rescinded the ability of the Labor Bureau to investigate discrimination in the workplace, claiming this will increase workplace discrimination against Trans folks. Once again, Mr. Seder is completely unaware of how the Federal Government LEGALLY is bound to operate on civil rights. Yes, President Trump did rescind that part of the Labor Bureau, but that does not mean that was the Bureau’s job to investigate discrimination in the first place. The two parts of the government that do oversee those investigations include:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): An independent federal agency focused exclusively on preventing and remedying unlawful employment discrimination. It enforces multiple statutes, including Title VII (race, color, religion, sex—including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation—national origin), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA Title I), the Equal Pay Act (EPA), and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (specifically its Employment Litigation Section): Part of the executive branch Department of Justice, with a broader civil rights mandate across society (voting, housing, education, hate crimes, etc.). In employment, CRT enforces Title VII and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) primarily against state and local government employers, along with certain other laws like the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). It addresses systemic or pattern-or-practice discrimination and protects vulnerable populations.

Oh, and in case anyone forgot, because Mr. Seder certainly did, Transgender Americans are not going to face employment discrimination EVER. I know this because the United States Supreme Court already ruled on this issue six years ago! On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Granted, the Congressional Republicans ALMOST passed in the Big Beautiful Bill a provision on Medicaid that would have tax-payer funded gender affirming care. However, on July 1, 2025 the Senate dropped this provision in their version of the bill and did not become part of the statute.

So no, Mr. Seder there has been no “attack” on the Transgender community. This is just a return to efficiency and common sense at the federal level.

There has been no “attack” on a Women’s right to choose (Abortion & RFRA)

The topic of abortion was hotly contested throughout the 2024 election cycle on both the Left and the Right. When it came to how the Left viewed abortion under a Trump Presidency, they just made a mountain of a molehill—claiming Trump and a Republican Congress would ban abortions everywhere, which was entirely false. First off, on October 1, 2024 Donald Trump went on record in a Truth Social post pledging if he returns to the Presidency; he would not support a federal ban abortion, and also would veto such legislation if it ever passeds in Congress.

So far, since Trump has taken office, he has only implemented a small number of actions within his Executive capacities relating to abortion:

On January 23, 2025, President Trump signed full and unconditional pardons to 23 Pro-Life prisoners that were incarcerated under the Biden Administration for violating the FACE Act.
On January 24, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14182, which reinforced the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.
On January 24, 2025, President Trump signed a memorandum reinstating the Mexico City Policy. It was first established under the Reagan Administration but later revoked under ensuing Democratic Administrations and then reinstated under still more future Republican Administrations. This policy blocks US federal funding from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) providing abortion counseling or referrals, advocating to decriminalize abortion, or expanding abortion services.
- On January 22, 2026, Trump’s State Department finalized a historic expansion of the Mexico City Policy to bar U.S. foreign assistance from directly or indirectly subsidizing abortion, gender ideology, or DEI programs.
On February 18, 2026 President Trump signed Executive Order 14216, which expands further access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) for Americans.
- President Trump has received some pushback from pro-life groups for his pro-IVF stance.
On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law his Big Beautiful Bill, which included protecting Medicaid from funding abortion providers.

As for the supposed “enhanced” RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act)—which requires the government to protect religious freedom interests—President Trump has not taken any direct action to amend, enhance, or strengthen the RFRA since returning to office on January 20, 2025. So, Sam was wrong in his prediction on that point.

There has been no “attack” on a Women’s right to choose (Abortion & RFRA)

So far, since Trump has taken office, he has only implemented a small number of actions within his Executive capacities relating to abortion:

On January 23, 2025, President Trump signed full and unconditional pardons to 23 Pro-Life prisoners that were incarcerated under the Biden Administration for violating the FACE Act.
On January 24, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14182, which reinforced the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.
On January 24, 2025, President Trump signed a memorandum reinstating the Mexico City Policy. It was first established under the Reagan Administration but later revoked under ensuing Democratic Administrations and then reinstated under still more future Republican Administrations. This policy blocks US federal funding from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) providing abortion counseling or referrals, advocating to decriminalize abortion, or expanding abortion services.
- On January 22, 2026, Trump’s State Department finalized a historic expansion of the Mexico City Policy to bar U.S. foreign assistance from directly or indirectly subsidizing abortion, gender ideology, or DEI programs.
On February 18, 2026 President Trump signed Executive Order 14216, which expands further access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) for Americans.
- President Trump has received some pushback from pro-life groups for his pro-IVF stance.
On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law his Big Beautiful Bill, which included protecting Medicaid from funding abortion providers.

“Xenophobic Nationalist”

Of all three groups Sam referenced, this has the most subjectively loaded phrasing. To understand the words: Xenophobia is fear of people perceived as strange or foreign, and nationalism is identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests. Therefore, “xenophobic nationalism” in this context would mean supporting policies that benefit America and put citizens first before foreigners.

Throughout the debate, almost no one addressed Sam on this until the very end of the segment, when he debated the extremely capable Sarah Stock. At 41:59, she used Sam’s own words to explain why this policy position is not problematic despite his framing:

Now, I will be upfront: If I were in her shoes, I probably would not have yielded to her debate tactic, because some will interpret it as admitting what Sam was saying! As someone aware of the language used, I fully understand what she meant. The whole point of Sarah’s argument was:

President Trump’s immigration’s policies are not Far-Right, but purely common sense.
President Trump has overall been softer on immigration than the Right hoped he would be.

To put into context on the first point, Here is an old radio address President Bill Clinton made in 1995 on illegal immigration:

That nearly sounded verbatim how Trump talks about illegal aliens, no?

The issue of immigration in the United States, as well as the deportation process, is massively complex. It is so complex that, unfortunately, I will not be able to cover it fully in this article. I promise to devote an entire article to this topic at a future date. What I can offer now is a simple breakdown of the core immigration policies we hoped to see from the Trump Administration:

Deport every illegal alien that has violated 8 USC § 1325 and 8 USC § 1326.
Seek to attempt reforms on some elements of legal immigration such as H-1B and H-2B visas.

This is just my personal opinion, but this stance is not that of a “xenophobic nationalist.” It is a common-sense stance of what they believe will benefit American society—helping determine which immigrants will benefit the American people and assimilate into American culture.

Sam is Wrong: Other Voting Blocs Benefit from the Trump Administration

See Also: Why Trump Won

Now that we have debunked that these three groups are not benefiting MORE than other voting blocs—or exclusively—we need to address if they are the ONLY groups benefiting. Remember, the keyword in Sam’s claim is “UNLESS”—insinuating benefits are exclusive to them.

This is factually incorrect. President Trump’s 2024 Presidential Campaign was unprecedented in attempting to gain maximum voter turnout. To achieve this and win, his campaign thought outside the box. While core issues focused on the economy, crime, and the Southern Border crisis, Trump made bold promises to groups outside his loyal base. By reaching across the aisle, these moves helped hand Trump his victory. More importantly, since entering office, he has fulfilled multiple promises to these groups:

Libertarian Voters

President Trump has fulfilled his promises to libertarians by:

Freeing Ross Ulbricht from prison with a full pardon.
Shutting down the Department of Education to his maximum legal capacity.
Mitigating the military-industrial complex.
Declassifying the remaining records relating to the JFK Assassination.

RFK Jr. / Tulsi Gabbard Supporters

After securing the major endorsements from both Kennedy and Gabbard, Trump was able to fulfill promises to their supporters by:

Appointing Kennedy as the Secretary of Health & Human Services, so he can fulfill the Make America Healthy Again mandate.
Appointing Gabbard as the Director of National Intelligence, so she can clean house of all who have abused the purview of the Intel community.

The Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina

During the 2024 presidential election, both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris courted the tribe of 55,000 to tip the swing state in their favor. Following Trump’s inevitable victory, he kept his word to the Tribe by:

Signed a Memorandum to submit a plan to advance full federal recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina.
President Trump signed into S 1071, “National Defense Authorization Act of 2026”, which included Senator Thom Tillis’s (R-NC) bill “The Lumbee Fairness Act” into the NDAA which granted the Tribe Federal recognition at 137 years of fighting.

Was Voting for Trump a Mistake?

Main Article 1: It’s Time to Address the Elephants in the Room

Main Article 2: Celebrating Year One of America’s Golden Age

The short answer is no. The longer answer is…complicated, but I will still yield to, “no”.

I view it like this: If you have been reading my articles long enough, you are probably familiar with a saying I like to use to explain the purpose of voting: “Voting is not a valentine; you aren’t professing your love for the candidate. It’s a chess move for the world you want to live in.”

At the time of this publication, it has been 413 days since Donald Trump returned to the Presidency. To say it’s been a bit “rocky” is probably generous, depending on how much you like or dislike Trump. His second term has not been perfect—anyone with common sense can acknowledge that. The way his administration handled the release of the Epstein Files was a disaster; he made some ridiculous policy proposals like the 50-year mortgage plan; and some unnecessary Truth Social posts (like the one after Rob Reiner’s murder), all of which have taken a toll on his approval ratings.

That being said, there has also been a lot of good Trump has accomplished. He lands well in some places and not so well in others. So far, I can say I have zero regrets from voting for Trump; therefore, it was not a mistake. Granted, I know many right-leaning Americans may be unaware of both the criticisms and achievements of the Trump Presidency thus far. For some more content on that, you can read my two previous articles to learn more.

It's Time to Address the Elephants in the Room

Tyler Segal

July 22, 2025

Read full story

Celebrating Year One of America's Golden Age

Tyler Segal

December 29, 2025

Read full story

Sam’s 3rd Claim: The GOP will destroy Social Security and healthcare.

This is a rather complex claim that Same is making. One’s agreement or disagreement will result from whether one believes we should take a more progressive or conservative approach to both institutions. Just to get it out of the way, yes, I am aware Sam is not saying the GOP is LITERALLY destroying Social Security or healthcare. Any attempt to so much as propose abolishing Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, would be political suicide. So, let’s look extensively at what the Republicans have done related to both groups.

On Social Security

As of today’s date, the Trump Administration and the Republican-led Congress have done the following with respect to Social Security:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) Announced on February 28, 2025 that they reduced the Federal workforce from 57,000 to 50,000 workers.
On March 25, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14247, “Modernizing Payments To and From America’s Bank Account.” This requires all federal agencies to phase out paper checks for payments, including Social Security and tax refunds, by September 30, 2025. This initiative aims to reduce costs, enhance security, and minimize fraud, as paper checks are over 16 times more likely to be lost, stolen, or delayed.
On April 15, 2025, President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum, “Preventing Illegal Aliens from Obtaining Social Security Act Benefits.” This directs SSA and related agencies to strengthen verification, expand fraud prosecutions (including identity theft), address data issues (e.g., missing death records), and block improper access.
On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law his “Big Beautiful Bill,” or HR 1 for short. This provides an additional above-the-line tax deduction for taxpayers age 65 and older: $6,000 for singles or $12,000 for married couples filing jointly (phases out for higher incomes; available 2025–2028, in addition to the existing senior deduction).
- The White House and SSA stated this effectively eliminates federal income tax on Social Security benefits for ~88–90% of beneficiaries (e.g., those with average benefits around $24,000/year), fulfilling part of Trump’s “no tax on Social Security” campaign promise. SSA applauded it as “historic tax relief for seniors.”

On Healthcare

As of today’s date, here are the major reforms the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress have achieved so far with regard to healthcare reforms:

On Lower Drug Prices:
- On April 15, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14273, “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First.”
- On May 12, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14297, “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients.” The order aims to reduce the cost of prescription drugs by directing federal agencies to link U.S. prices to the lower prices paid for the same drugs in a group of other developed countries.
- On November 6, 2025, President Trump unveiled agreements with pharmaceutical manufacturers Eli Lilly and Company and Novo Nordisk to dramatically reduce the prices Americans pay for some of the world’s most popular drugs.
- On December 19, 2026, President Trump announced nine new agreements with major pharmaceutical companies—Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi—to lower prescription drug prices.
- On February 6, 2026, launched the official government Web site TrumpRx.gov, which gives Americans direct access to dramatically lower prices on dozens of common, high-cost brand-name prescription drugs.
On Medicaid, Per the Big Beautiful Bill:
- Imposed new “community engagement”/work requirements (80 hours/month of work, volunteering, or training, with exemptions; effective January 1, 2027, with state implementation timelines).
- Required more frequent eligibility redetermination (every 6 months for ACA expansion adults starting 2027).
- Restricted state provider taxes/financing mechanisms. Limited or altered eligibility for certain lawfully present immigrants/non-citizens (effective October 1, 2026).
- Introduced or expanded cost-sharing for some higher-income expansion enrollees (phased in later).
- Paused/reversed some Biden-era streamlining rules. CBO and others estimate significant coverage losses and administrative burdens.
ACA Marketplaces, per the Big Beautiful Bill:
- Did not extend the enhanced premium tax credits/subsidies (which expired December 31, 2025, leading to higher premiums for many).
- Added stricter pre-enrollment verification for premium tax credits (ending automatic re-enrollment; phased in for later plan years). Shortened or restricted some special enrollment periods and imposed other integrity measures.
Medicare, per the Big Beautiful Bill:
- Provided a temporary 2.5% update to the physician payment conversion factor for 2026.
Rulemaking and appropriations:
- CMS issued/finalized rules tightening ACA marketplace eligibility and enrollment (e.g., 2025–2026 integrity rules estimating further coverage reductions). FY2026 appropriations directed resources to combat fraud/waste in federal health programs (including Medicaid/Medicare).
Trump’s Great Healthcare Plan:
- On January 15, 2026, President Trump announced his policy proposal that he wants Congress to codify into law (i.e., rendering permanent), the following:
  - Lower Drug Prices
  - Lower Insurance Premiums
  - Hold “Big Insurance” In Check
  - Maximizing Price Transparency

Is The GOP ‘Destroying’ These Institutions?

To be as impartial as I can: These actions are a mixed bag. Beneficial aspects include drug price reductions, PBM transparency, and WEP/GPO eliminations, which could save money for individuals and address inequities. However, OBBBA’s cuts and subsidy expiration are projected to impact 11 Million uninsured people and could raise costs for millions, per nonpartisan CBO estimates—and will be potentially “destructive” for low-income and immigrant groups. Proposed Social Security retirement age hikes aim at solvency but equate to benefit cuts (7-14% lifetime reduction per year delayed), disproportionately affecting manual laborers with shorter lifespans. Bipartisan support exists for elements like earlier savings access, but deep partisan divides persist, with public opinion favoring protection over cuts (e.g., 86-90% across parties want Social Security prioritized). Ultimately, outcomes depend on implementation; while reforms may curb long-term costs, short-term disruptions could harm vulnerable populations without offsets like revenue increases.

However, as things currently stand, it is very clear that the Republicans have not made an attempt, nor are considering gutting the meat of Social Security or healthcare. What they have accomplished so far—no taxes on Social Security, imposing work requirements for Medicaid, and lowering drug prices (with the intention to codify)—is proof that Mr. Seder is incorrect in his claim.

Sam’s 4th Claim: President Trump’s Policies Make the Rich Richer and the Working Class Poorer.

This is an interesting claim because when you read the claim carefully, Sam is actually making two claims combined into one: The first being the policies—economic policies in particular—will make the rich class more rich, while simultaneously leaving the working class in a poorer state than they already are in at time stamp 1:04:59.

HUNTER: Do you mind if I ask what policies in specific are you referencing to?
SAM: Tax cuts for the rich. I think his idea of tariffs on countries in the way that he’s talking about will make people poor. I think all the work that they’re doing in terms of attacking the government agencies make people poor, because you know when you get agencies that are supposed to protect us from corporate interests, they will externalize their cost—those corporations—instead of actually assuming themselves so their profits are made on the backs all of us. Whether it’s our health, our protection from consumer rights, worker rights. His anti-union policies will make us poor.

So, I will concede now and agree with the former half of Mr. Seder’s claim. As acknowledged in his second claim regarding the Billionaire (as well as Millionaire) class benefiting from the Trump Presidency thanks to his economic policies. The real question that needs to be answered though is if the working class is being harmed from Trump’s policies, making them more poor. The answer to that is rather nuanced, but is based on the facts of the policies Trump has implemented so far as President.

The Trump Tax Cuts

President Trump’s landmark tax cuts—first under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, with most provisions made permanent under the Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025—is the core of Trump’s tax plan that he successfully enacted. The specific provisions that the BBB made permanent from the TCJA are those associated with personal income taxes. I mentioned this previously when I debunked Dean Withers on a similar grievance he shared. From that grievance I will share the same response, which thanks to now confirmed data directly from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), says for certainty that both the Middle and Lower Classes of American society benefitted even more than the Upper Class. Here is part of analysis of the IRS data, courtesy of Justin Haskins, Vice President and Senior Fellow of The Heartland Institute:

A careful analysis of the IRS tax data proves that filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $15,000 to $50,000 enjoyed an average tax cut of 16 percent to 26 percent in 2018, the first year Republicans’ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act went into effect and the most recent year for which data is available. Filers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 received a tax break of about 15 percent to 17 percent, and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 in adjusted gross income saw their personal income taxes cut by around 11 percent to 13 percent. By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least $500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9 percent, and the average tax cut for brackets starting at $1 million was less than 6 percent…By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least $500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9 percent, and the average tax cut for brackets starting at $1 million was less than 6 percent…That means most middle-income and working-class earners enjoyed a tax cut that was at least double the size of tax cuts received by households earning $1 million or more.

Source: The Hill, The Heartland Institute

Along with tax cuts being made permanent, the President’s Big Beautiful Bill also has multiple benefits that are intended to further uplift the Middle and Working Classes:

Permanent Extension of Opportunity Zones: Created under the 2017 TCJA, Opportunity Zones stimulate economic development and job creation, by incentivizing long-term investments in low-income neighborhoods. They impact 31.3 million Americans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia — or roughly 10% of the country. An additional 3.7 million people reside in Opportunity Zones in five U.S. territories. The BBB makes the program permanent, establishing specific tax incentives for investments in rural areas, and modifies the rules related to deferred gains and stepped-up basis.
Increased Permanent Extension of the Child Tax Credit: The 2017 TCJA doubled the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 to $2,000. Then under the 2025 BBB, not only did they make the child tax credit permanent, but also INCREASED it to $2,200.
The Creation of Trump Accounts: The BBB launched a new type of tax-advantaged account, called a Trump account. This creates tax-advantaged savings for kids under 18; a $1,000 one-time federal seed deposit for eligible children born 2025–2028. This promotes wealth-building but is modest/temporary.
- The tax program officially launches on July 5, 2026.
- If you have had children born since the year 2025 you can begin filling out applications here: https://form.trumpaccounts.gov/

Trump’s Global Tariffs

Main Article 1: Understanding the Tariffs a Little Better

Main Article 2: Were We Misled about Economics?

Sam’s concerns about the Tariffs was a sentiment shared by many economic “experts” that certain tariffs would crash the economy. However, as we all know by now, the so-called experts were significantly wrong. As I have reported previously, thanks to the help of the $220+ Trillion in tariff revenue since “Liberation Day” on April 2, 2025, we have several examples of economic success thanks to the tariffs.

First, the tariffs have pressured companies to produce their manufacturing in America, and has resulted in over $9 TRILLION in investments over the next few years. Along with that, President Trump has also been able to score multiple new trade deals with regions including the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and the European Union, all of whom have at one time screwed over the US, but who now no longer can. Despite the fear of economic turmoil, the United States has added well near 1.48 Million jobs since President Trump’s return to office. In conjunction, all of those jobs were taken 100% by native-born citizens within the private sector. Core inflation also dropped to its lowest level in five years. Additionally the tariffs even got praise from union leaders, including the President of United Auto Workers, who view the tariffs as a means to secure manufacturing jobs for American workers.

Trump’s Changes to the Administrative State

So, this is where the nuance I was talking about applies regarding President Trump’s policies driving some setbacks for the Working Class. Of the list of policies Sam referenced, I will further concede that Trump’s influence on restructuring Federal Agencies is having some negative impact that could lead to the Working Class being in a potentially poorer state. So far since returning to office, and at the time of this publication, President Trump has:

Signed Executive Order 14251 on March 27, 2025, which excluded employees at over 20 agencies (e.g., EPA, DHS, and parts of HHS) from federal labor-management relations programs, citing national security, effectively stripping collective bargaining rights from nearly a million workers.
Signed Executive Order 14343 on August 28, 2025,expanded this to additional agencies like NASA and the USPTO. Unions have called this one of the largest union-busting efforts in history, leading to terminations of contracts and loss of protections for about 445,000 employees by September 2025.
President Trump has also reshaped the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by appointing anti-union figures, such as Crystal Carey as NLRB general counsel (from a firm representing employers like Amazon and Tesla). He also fired pro-worker leaders like acting chair Gwynne Wilcox in early 2025, leading to lawsuits and accusations of illegally paralyzing the board.
- For context, the NLRB is the Agency that oversees the allegations of collective bargaining and unfair labor practices.

Are Trump’s Policies Making the Working Class Poorer?

The truth is, the policies bring a mixed bag of results. It really boils down to the extent to which an individual believes the government should play a role in our economy. If you are a progressive that believes the government should provide more social programs via tax revenue, then it makes sense why such a person would think that Trump’s policies would hurt people of lower socio-economic status. While President Trump’s economic policies (especially tax-related) have consistently directed larger benefits to the wealthy, contributing to greater inequality, that does not mean they uniformly or directly “make the working class poorer” in absolute income terms during key periods. The picture is nuanced, with benefits skewed upward rather than a zero-sum “rich gain, poor lose” dynamic in every case.

My Closing Thoughts After Writing This

This third article in my “Debunking the Left” series was rather interesting, to put it generously. Compared to the previous two, I felt more challenged in my views. Sam Seder is a different kind of progressive than most other left-wing commentators. Compared to Dean Withers and Steven ‘Destiny’ Bonnell (subjects of previous articles), Sam’s approach was less about Donald Trump the “character” and more about Donald Trump the President. One personal observation I must respectfully critique: The American Right is not as committed to policy research as we should be.

Make no mistake: I am not saying conservatives have no idea what they believe or why they align with it. What I am addressing is that the left-wing apparatus has invested far more in studying political theory and policy development in recent years, easily winning over more young voters in local and federal elections. As I have written previously, one reason Trump won and Kamala lost in 2024 is that Trump’s strategy was more policy-focused compared to Kamala’s emphasis on being the likable fresh candidate.

At the time of Sam’s debate (filmed shortly after Trump’s inauguration), his claims were predictions of what COULD happen under the Trump Administration. While I acknowledge a couple of the things he predicted came true, overall, and with the benefit of hindsight, we can see he was mostly incorrect as we look back on things over a year later. President Trump’s policies have not harmed Americans or destroyed the economy. Has his second term been flawless? No—there have been issues disappointing many supporters, such as the Epstein Files response or the recent second attack on Iran (a topic for a future article). However, to believe a majority or plurality of Trump voters regret their vote or think it was a mistake is completely false.

Furthermore, I will credit Mr. Seder: He absolutely gave his opposition at the debate a great run for their money. While I rarely engage in debates, I always enjoy conversing with people I disagree with on material issues—which in politics almost always ties back to public policy. In the end, I am glad I addressed Sam Seder’s claims. While many viewers of his Surrounded episode may not have felt satisfied with the conservatives debating him, hopefully they now have access to new information about the Trump Administration. Who knows—perhaps, just like Sam Seder’s debate, this article may open up dialogue to promote right-wing policies that may not have been considered until now. If it does spark even a single productive exchange across the aisle, that’s a win worth celebrating.

Read the Series

More of this series will be released this year throughout 2026. In the meantime, feel free to read the others I have published so far in my “Debunking the Left” Series. This list will be continuously updated as more articles will be published in the future:

Prologue: Coming Soon: Debunking the Left
Debunking Dean Withers
Debunking Steven Bonnell / Destiny
Debunking Sam Seder

Timelines & Headlines

It's Time to Address the Elephants in the Room

Celebrating Year One of America's Golden Age

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?