After Maine’s governor publicly challenged him, Trump threw the state’s Social Security into chaos
- Share via
On Feb. 21, Maine’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, publicly upbraided Donald Trump over his transgender policies.
Here’s what happened after that. Out of the blue, the Trump administration canceled a contract that allowed parents in the state to apply for Social Security numbers for their newborns by simply checking a box on a form at the hospital—the way parents in all 50 states have done for decades, as the Social Security Administration has said.
The change meant that new parents would have to bring their infants to one of only eight Social Security field offices in Maine, sometimes by traveling for hours, exposing the newborns to infectious diseases in public.
It makes absolutely no sense to me at all to do this.
— Dr. Joe Anderson, American Academy of Pediatrics
That happened Thursday. The change, which came with no explanation, created an immediate uproar among Social Security advocates and healthcare providers in Maine.
Dr. Joe Anderson, advocacy chair of the Maine chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said that eliminating the program “creates a lot of unnecessary and unfair burdens for families.”
Get the latest from Michael Hiltzik
Commentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize winner.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
“It makes absolutely no sense to me at all to do this,” Anderson told the Portland Press Herald. “I see no logical explanation for forcing parents and newborns — with 11,000 babies born in Maine every year — to sit in a crowded waiting room, when we have done this easily, securely and efficiently for decades.”
As has happened so often with the Trump White House’s thoughtless policy decisions, this one was reversed a day later.
Lee Dudek, the acting commissioner of Social Security, issued a press release Friday, stating that the contract allowing parents to apply for their newborns’ Social Security numbers through Maine’s healthcare agency, along with another through which Maine authorities reported deaths of Maine residents to the Social Security Administration, had been reinstated.
Trump promised to leave Social Security alone, but his actions speak louder than his words
“In retrospect, I realize that ending these contracts created an undue burden on the people of Maine, which was not the intent,” Dudek said. “For that, I apologize and have directed that both contracts be immediately reinstated.”
If throwing a stink bomb into Maine wasn’t the “intent,” what was? No one in the administration has said. I asked the Social Security Administration for further explanation, but haven’t received a reply.
To Social Security advocates, however, the intent was clear. The move, said Max Richtman, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, “defies common sense and implies nefarious motives....Why on earth would the administration want to make it harder for parents to register their children for Social Security unless the aim was to shrink the size of the program?”
The advocacy organization Social Security Works had the same impression. “Canceling those contracts created waste, abuse, and at least the potential for fraud,” said Nancy Altman, its executive director. “There is no policy reason for canceling them, and many policy reasons against it. The only explanation is political revenge against Maine Gov. Janet Mills.”
Trump has said that he’s “not touching” Social Security, but actions speak louder than words.
A few points about the Enumeration at Birth policy, which allowed Maine parents, like those of all other states, to register their newborns through their state agencies, almost immediately upon giving birth.
The Social Security tax cap protects the wealthy from paying their fair share. The rest of us pick up the burden
The Social Security Administration website advises new parents on the simplicity of the process:
“When you complete the application for your baby’s birth certificate, you will be asked whether you want to apply for an SSN [Social Security Number] for your baby. If you say ‘yes,’ you will be asked to provide both parents’ SSNs. If you don’t know both parents’ SSNs, you still can apply for your child’s SSN.”
The procedure has been in effect since the 1980s, and has covered all 50 states since 1997. The Social Security Administration says that 99% of all babies born in the U.S. get their Social Security numbers this way. Since about 3.5 million babies are born in the U.S. every year, that’s a lot of babies.
Having a Social Security number soon after birth has become only more important over the years. It’s needed so parents can claim the child tax credit if they’re eligible, claim the newborn as a dependent, open a bank account or buy savings bonds for the child, and for infants to be covered by public healthcare programs, 529 college savings plans, and other services.
Requiring parents to bring their infants to a field office is, as Dudek acknowledged, a burden — and dangerous besides. That’s especially true as the DOGE budget-cutters rampaging through the Social Security Administration have stated their intent to cut the agency’s customer service budget, in part by closing field offices.
The so-called Department of Government Efficiency’s website, where it lists contracts it has canceled and their value, listed enumeration contracts in five states — Maryland, Arizona, Michigan, New Mexico and Rhode Island (but not Maine) — totaling about $8 million. But those cancellations were purportedly aimed at stripping diversity, equality and inclusiveness elements out of state policies, not at forcing parents to register their newborns in person.
I reported a few days ago on the sheer ignorance of the attacks on Social Security by Trump and Elon Musk, his DOGE czar. Musk has called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” which is utterly untrue, and Trump has trumpeted claims that the system is rife with fraud — also untrue.
This latest fiasco underscores how little they know about Social Security, and how little they care. They’re taking aim at the most popular public program in America, and the best anti-poverty program in its history.
Their meddling is certain to produce a massive political blowback. They might even have been able to get away with this latest stunt, but they seem to have read the writing on the wall. Still, the very idea that they tried it was infuriating, embarrassing, and, perhaps more importantly, very scary.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The Trump administration abruptly canceled Maine’s long-standing Enumeration at Birth (EAB) program, which allowed parents to register newborns for Social Security numbers at hospitals, forcing families to apply in-person at Social Security offices. Critics, including advocacy groups and healthcare providers, called the move a politically motivated retaliation against Maine Gov. Janet Mills for defying Trump’s transgender athlete ban[1][3][8].
- Advocates argued the reversal would burden families—particularly low-income households—by requiring travel to distant offices, exposing newborns to health risks in crowded waiting rooms. Dr. Joe Anderson of the Maine AAP called the policy “unnecessary and unfair,” noting it disrupted a secure, efficient system used by 99% of parents nationwide[1][3][5].
- Social Security Works President Nancy Altman labeled the cancellation “political revenge” with no policy rationale, emphasizing it risked fraud and administrative waste while undermining a critical anti-poverty program. The reinstatement of contracts after public backlash highlighted the administration’s haphazard policymaking[3][5][8].
Different views on the topic
- The Trump administration framed its actions as enforcing fiscal responsibility and Title IX compliance. Acting Social Security Commissioner Lee Dudek initially claimed the contract cancellations targeted inefficiencies, later apologizing for the “undue burden” while maintaining the intent was to streamline operations[1][5].
- Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from Maine over its refusal to ban transgender athletes from women’s sports, asserting Title IX protections for athletes’ “biological sex.” The Department of Education launched an investigation, alleging Maine’s policy endangered fairness and safety in girls’ athletics[2][4][7].
- Supporters of the administration’s stance argued states must comply with federal interpretations of anti-discrimination laws. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cited cost savings from axing similar contracts in other states, though critics dismissed this as a pretext for ideological targeting of DEI initiatives[5][6][7].
Inside the business of entertainment
The Wide Shot brings you news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production — and what it all means for the future.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
