Fired Federal Workers Were Told to Contact Dead Woman to Complain

Got a problem with the Trump administration? Good luck.

Recently laid-off employees from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were told to contact Anita Pinder, the former director at the agency’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights, with any complaints. A notice informed severed workers that they had 45 calendar days to contact Pinder following their termination date, listing Pinder’s name, email, and phone number.

But those who knew Pinder said the directive came as a “gut punch,” according to The Washington Post, since Pinder died last year.

“They couldn’t have run it past the people at CMS that were at the funeral and knew she died,” Karen Shields, one of Pinder’s former co-workers, told the Post. “This is a lack of communication. There is just a better way to do this.”

Shields told the newspaper that it “pained” her to see Pinder’s name used in the reduction-in-force notices.

“She would have been someone, even though her job would have been on the chopping block, she would have helped,” Shields said.

The negligent error is just one recent instance in which the “shock and awe” of the Trump administration’s federal makeover has resulted in dud details and mass confusion.

At the Food and Drug Administration, fired staffers were instructed to contact an Office of Equal Employment Opportunity employee that had left the agency more than a month ago, the Post reported.

So far, the Trump administration—directed by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency—has fired more than 100,000 federal employees. But tens of thousands more government jobs are expected to be on the chopping block as Trump pursues a second round of “voluntary” buyouts.

More than 10,000 jobs are expected to be cut at the Department of Health and Human Services, which encompasses the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has proposed downsizing the agency’s 82,000-person workforce by nearly a quarter.

A new Gallup poll shows that Americans are much more worried about Social Security and the economy.

The poll, which measured opinions from March 3 to March 16, said that concern about the Social Security system is at a 15-year high, with 52 percent of Americans worried about it a “great deal.” Also ranking high were the economy at 60 percent, health care costs at 59 percent, and inflation at 56 percent.

The worries reflect the Trump administration’s actions over the past few months, with cuts made to the Social Security Administration and the whiplash over the president’s bizarre tariff decisions. Those fears may get worse, as Trump went ahead with instituting aggressive tariffs against countries across the world on Wednesday, calling it “Liberation Day.” Meanwhile, Elon Musk, who is overseeing much of the administration’s policy, has called Social Security “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.”

Markets have already plummeted Thursday, and criticism of the tariffs have even come within the Republican Party. Cuts to the Social Security Administration threaten to cause interruptions to benefits for 73 million retired workers, their survivors, and poor and disabled Americans. Last month, Martin O’Malley, who headed the SSA under President Biden, warned that the cuts could result in the agency missing payments for the first time in its 80-year history.

It’s no surprise that the last time worries about Social Security were this high, the country was in the midst of a recession brought about by the financial crisis of 2008. The difference between now and then is that these worries are brought about by self-inflicted crises. Neither the SSA or the economy were in trouble prior to Trump’s inauguration. If the president continues on its current course, these worries could evolve into full-blown panic over losing Social Security and an even worse recession.

The Trump administration is urging nervous voters to “trust” it in response to the impending economic fallout from the President’s tariffs on virtually all foreign imports.

“To anyone on Wall Street this morning I would say trust in President Trump,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on CNN Thursday morning. “This is a president who is doubling down on his proven economic formula from his first time. We saw a wages increase, we saw inflation come down. We had a Trump energy boom, we had the largest tax cuts in history, and that’s exactly what the president intends to do.… The United States of America is no longer going to be cheated by foreign nations around the world.”

The trade war that the president announced on Wednesday as “Liberation Day” has already tanked the stock market. The country is lurching into a recession, and there is little indication that things will improve anytime soon. Indeed, the tariffs announced on Wednesday are little more than a spiteful policy intended to stick it to friend and foe alike, ostensibly for the purpose of reinvigorating American manufacturing. This is virtually impossible, as these aggressive reciprocal tariffs will most certainly drive up prices for manufacturers and consumers across the country. But the administration would rather have you believe that the economic impact won’t be that bad, or even noticeable.

“What can you tell the American people that—they just can’t afford an extra $3 here and there—about the government making up the difference from them?” Lawrence Jones asked Vice President JD Vance on Thursday morning. “Will costs go up at some point, will this just be temporary? Are we talkin’ three months or six months?”

“We know a lot of Americans are worried. So we are working very hard to bring prices down,” Vance said. “What I ask folks to appreciate here is that we are not gonna fix things overnight.… We know people are struggling, we’re fighting as quickly as we can to fix what was left to us. But it’s not gonna happen immediately. But we really do believe that if we pursue the right deregulation, we pursue those energy cost-reducing policies, yes people are gonna see it in their pocketbook, they’re also gonna benefit from the fact that foreign countries can’t take advantage of us anymore, that means their jobs are gonna be more secure.”

Neither Vance nor Leavitt actually explain how actions like hitting China with a 34 percent tariff will bring prices down for the everyday American, or how this country will be a self-sufficient producer in just a few years. This backtracking and gaslighting is a far cry from Trump’s promise to “immediately bring prices down, starting on day one.”

In the scores of countries hit by Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs announced Wednesday, one was mysteriously—but not surprisingly—absent: Russia.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Axios Wednesday that Moscow had been spared from Trump’s tariffs because U.S. sanctions already “preclude any meaningful trade.”

Similarly, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News that it wasn’t necessary to place tariffs on Russia because after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, trade between the U.S. and Russia had effectively dried up.

But the claim that the U.S. doesn’t trade with Russia isn’t remotely true. In 2024, the U.S. imported $3 billion worth of goods from Russia, which was down from $4.6 billion the year before.

While this number may be small in comparison to key trading partners such as Canada, which imported a whopping $412.7 billion worth of American goods in 2024, it is still significantly more trade than with other countries that Trump levied steep tariffs against.

For example, Saint Pierre et Miquelon, a small French island territory off the coast of Canada, was hit with a whopping 50 percent tariff on imports to the U.S. The island, which has a population of roughly 5,000 people, imported only $100,000 worth of U.S. goods in 2024 and exported roughly $3.4 million worth of goods back.

If that’s not low enough, Trump even listed several uninhabited islands as receiving a 10 percent tariff on imports to the United States: Heard Island and the McDonald Islands, an Australian territory that is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site for its “complete absence of alien plants and animals, as well as human impact.”

Clearly, a lack of trade was not an actual consideration in the Trump administration’s decision to levy tariffs, though Leavitt claimed that existing sanctions were also why Cuba, Belarus, and North Korea were not included on the list.

With Leavitt’s excuse falling flat, it seems increasingly likely that Trump has attempted to carve out a back door for Russian President Vladimir Putin to continue to do business with the U.S. as it makes an economic enemy out of every other country in the world.

Canada and Mexico were also absent from the list because Trump had already hit them with 25 percent tariffs on all U.S. imports, according to Leavitt.

The Trump administration seems to have destroyed global economies overnight while misunderstanding basic economics.

In the wake of Donald Trump’s tariff announcement Wednesday, former New Yorker financial writer James Surowiecki pointed out that a column on Trump’s tariff sheet labeled “tariffs charged to the U.S.A.” was likely founded on bad math.

“They didn’t actually calculate tariff rates + non-tariff barriers, as they say they did. Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country’s exports to us,” Surowiecki argued. “So we have a $17.9 billion trade deficit with Indonesia. Its exports to us are $28 billion. $17.9/$28 = 64 percent, which Trump claims is the tariff rate Indonesia charges us.”

“What extraordinary nonsense this is,” he added.

That would mean that the Trump administration imposed earth-shattering tariff hikes on the rest of the world without looking at the whole picture. Mainly, that the administration calculated the tariffs charged by other countries by only looking at goods provided, rather than the combined value of goods and services—something that “most economists seem to think is an odd way to calculate tariffs,” according to BBC Verify’s Shayan Sardarizadeh.

The White House initially refuted the tariff theory. White House Deputy Press Secretary Kush Desai posted on X that “we literally calculated tariff and non tariff barriers.” But in an attempt to prove his point, Desai grabbed a formula from the US Treasury website that actually proved Surowiecki’s.

Sardarizadeh broke it down. “∆τᵢ = (x-m) / (ε x φ x m),” he shared. “The formula includes ‘x’ for exports and ‘m’ for imports.”

“But it also has ‘ε’ for ‘price elasticity of import demand’, set at 4 by the Treasury; multiplied by ‘φ’ for ‘elasticity of import prices’, set at 0.25 by the Treasury, which means they basically cancel out each other as 4 x 0.25 = 1,” Sardarizadeh continued. “So, in effect, all you’re left with in the formula is exports - imports / imports, which is what X users and journalists had accurately pointed out all along.”

But the administration’s bad math only matters so much to the tariff-heavy agenda. Even in countries where the trade deficit was less than 10 percent, or even in countries where there was a surplus, Trump still tacked on a 10 percent tariff.

Donald Trump announced a range of tariffs on nearly every country in the world—including, inexplicably, some practically uninhabited islands, one of which is home to a U.S. military base.

The British Indian Ocean Territory, a small cluster of islands in the South Indian Ocean, was hit with 10 percent tariffs on U.S. imports from the Trump administration Wednesday as part of its Liberation Day announcement.

The islands are mostly uninhabited, save for approximately 3,000 U.S. and U.K. military personnel who are stationed at a joint Navy Support Facility on the island Diego Garcia. Trump’s tariffs would mostly affect the service members there. Another roughly 1,200 people live on the country’s Chagos Archipelago.

As one might expect from the name, the territory is owned by the United Kingdom, which Trump hit with a 10 percent tariff, relatively low compared to other countries.

Trump also announced 10 percent tariffs on the Heard Island and McDonald Islands, an uninhabited Australian territory that was listed as a Unesco World Heritage site for its “complete absence of alien plants and animals, as well as human impact.” Australia was saddled with a 10 percent tariff, as well.

It’s unclear whether the tariffs on these territories would compound to 20 percent. Crucially, it’s unclear that anyone thought about this at all.

Online, some speculated that the tariffs were doled out according to internet domains, and that because the Heart Island and McDonald Islands use a different domain (.hm) than Australia, (.au) they were considered different countries. That seemed to be the only explanation for levying a tariff on a territory that has no economy to speak of.

Donald Trump claimed Wednesday that the United States entered the Great Depression as a result of turning its back on the policy of placing tariffs on other countries in favor of an income tax.

During a winding speech to mark the so-called Liberation Day, Trump presented an alternative history where steep tariffs, like the ones he’d come to celebrate, could have prevented the worldwide economic disintegration of the early twentieth century.

“From 1789 to 1913 we were a tariff-backed nation, and the United States was proportionately the wealthiest it has ever been,” Trump said, adding that the U.S. was “collecting so much money, so fast, we didn’t know what to do with it!

“Then, in 1913 for reasons unknown to mankind, they established the income tax so citizens, rather than foreign countries, would start paying the money necessary to run our government,” he said.

“Then in 1928 it all came to a very abrupt end with the Great Depression, and it would have never happened if they had stayed with the tariff policy; it would have been a much different story,” Trump said. “They tried to bring back tariffs to save our country, but it was gone. It was gone. It was too late, nothing could have been done.”

Trump’s revisionist history is designed to promote his economic agenda—not reflect what actually happened. Not only could tariffs not have prevented the Great Depression, they made it even worse.

In 1913, as the result of struggling farmers and Democrats advocating to establish an income tax, Republicans put up an income tax amendment, hoping that it would be rejected—it wasn’t, and the Sixteenth Amendment became law.

At the same time, Congress passed the Underwood Simmons Tariff Act that lowered tariff rates from 40 percent to 27 percent, in a Democrat-backed effort to promote free trade. Crucially, tariffs were raised again in 1921, after Republican President Warren Harding entered the White House and began a reinvigorated era of protectionism.

In 1930, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised tariffs in all sectors and is considered to have exacerbated the worldwide economic downturn that lasted from 1929 until 1939, by undermining international trade and affording little protection to domestic producers.

Smoot-Hawley was disastrous not only for the U.S. economy, tanking U.S. exports to Europe from $2,341 million in 1929 to just $784 million in 1932, but also for global trade, which declined by a whopping 66 percent between 1929 and 1934, according to  the U.S. Office of the Historian. The effects of Smoot-Hawley were so awful that it marked the end of steep tariffs in American trade policy for the rest of the twentieth century.

Trump’s baseless insistence that lowered tariffs led to the Great Depression is representative of his entire economic policy, and just how untethered from reality it has become.

President Trump pulled out a chart to help illustrate his aggressive, country-specific tariff plans during his “Liberation Day” speech on Wednesday.

“We’re gonna be charging a discounted reciprocal tariff of 34 percent [on China],” Trump said, holding up the large black, blue, and yellow chart that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick dutifully brought to him onstage. “In other words, they charge us, we charge them. We charge them less, so how can anybody be upset? They will be, because we never charge anybody anything. But now we’re gonna charge.”

Trump confirmed there will be 25 percent tariffs on all car imports, in addition to the specific tariffs he plans to levy against each of our trading partners on the grounds that they’ve been “ripping us off.”

The chart notes plans for tariffs on a list of countries including:

• 34 percent tariffs on China
• 20 percent tariffs on the European Union
• 49 percent tariffs on Cambodia
• 37 percent tariffs on Bangladesh
• 44 percent tariffs on Sri Lanka
• 46 percent tariffs on Vietnam

The tariffs will affect more than 100 U.S. trading partners, but Canada and Mexico are conspicuously left off the list. Many of the targeted countries are some of the poorest in the world.

“We’re going to build our future with American hands, with American heart, with American steel, and we’re gonna build it with American pride like we used to,” Trump said later in his speech.

These tariffs—intended to revitalize domestic manufacturing—have shocked the market and will likely make multiple goods much more expensive for those American manufacturers, and for consumers.

This story has been updated.

Yet another law firm has come to an agreement with Donald Trump’s administration, after the president began targeting major law firms that hired lawyers he didn’t like or took up cases and clients he claimed went against his agenda.

Trump shared a statement on Truth Social Wednesday announcing that Milbank LPP agreed to perform $100 million worth of pro bono legal services on “initiatives supported by the president and Milbank,” including partners of “diverse political ideologies,” and representing the “full political spectrum, including Conservative ideals.

“Milbank shall not deny representation on the basis of the political affiliation of the prospective client, or because of opposition to any government official,” read the statement.

Similarly to the other firms that have struck a deal with the Trump administration, Milbank agreed not to engage in DEI hiring practices, in accordance with Trump’s executive order barring the supposedly discriminatory programs.

The deal comes as the Trump administration has targeted several other major law firms, alleging that they’d committed wrongdoing by defending clients in cases about racial discrimination, elections, and immigration. Trump threatened to have their security clearances revoked and government contracts terminated unless they complied with his demands.

Crucially, Milbank wasn’t targeted by the Trump administration but had “approached” the government stating its “resolve to help end the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession,” according to the statement. Last week, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom also preemptively agreed to bend the knee to Trump. Even though they hadn’t been the direct target of Trump’s vendetta, these law firms demonstrate the chilling effect of Trump’s executive orders.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher, another major law firm, which happens to employ Doug Emhoff, announced a similar deal earlier Wednesday, leading to calls for the former second gentleman to resign.

Two other major firms, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, challenged the Trump administration’s threat to revoke their security clearances as an unprecedented attack on the Sixth Amendment and a blatant attempt to chill the legal profession from taking up cases that aren’t aligned with his political agenda. Another law firm, Perkins Coie, which was targeted for representing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, challenged a similar order last month and was granted a temporary injunction against the Trump administration’s threat to revoke clearances and access.

Last month, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison caved to the administration and offered $40 million in free legal services, revoked its own DEI practices, and sold one of its own lawyers down the river, simply because he’d once investigated Trump for alleged financial crimes. Last month, Trump also targeted the firm Covington & Burling, suspending the security clearances of lawyers who had worked with former special prosecutor Jack Smith.

Signalgate seems to have been the norm for national security adviser Mike Waltz, rather than the exception.

Waltz’s team had set up at least 20 Signal group chats dedicated to discussing international crises, Politico reported Wednesday. His staff “regularly” leaned on the retail app to coordinate work on issues in Ukraine, China, Gaza, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, according to four people who had been added to the chats.

All four sources that spoke with the publication said they witnessed instances of “sensitive information” being discussed, reported Politico’s White House bureau chief Dasha Burns.

Waltz’s emerging national security scandals have made him less than popular in the White House. Last month, Waltz made Donald Trump furious by accidentally inviting a journalist to a Cabinet group chat on Signal about bombing Yemen.

In the days after the initial scandal broke, Wired reported that an account sharing the intelligence official’s name had seemingly left his Venmo profile public. In doing so, Waltz disclosed the names of hundreds of his personal and professional associates, including government officials and lobbyists.

Last week, the German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that Waltz was among several senior administration officials who had their personal data, such as account passwords, email addresses, and personal cell phone numbers, listed online.

If that weren’t bad enough, The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Waltz and his team had been relying on Gmail—a platform even less secure than Signal—to discuss “sensitive military positions and powerful weapons systems relating to an ongoing conflict.”

A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released Sunday suggested that 60 percent of polled Americans felt that the administration’s decision to use Signal to conduct highly sensitive government business was “wrong”—that included 73 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents, and 43 percent of Republicans.

A YouGov survey published last week found that 53 percent of nearly 6,000 polled Americans felt that the Trump administration’s Signal leak was “very serious,” while another 21 percent described it as “somewhat serious.”

It remains to be seen how Americans will feel about the other 19 Signal chats.