President Trump has vowed that he wouldn’t cut Social Security benefits, but his administration’s actions, led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, have upended the agency, leaving many beneficiaries concerned that the popular program and their payments may be imperiled.
Several players from the private equity world are now embedded inside the Social Security Administration, which is embarking on deep jobs cuts and other policy changes. At the same time, top Trump administration officials continue to perpetuate falsehoods about widespread fraud, even after the allegations are quickly debunked.
These rapid-fire changes have unfolded ahead of the arrival of the incoming commissioner, Frank Bisignano, whose nomination was advanced by the Senate Finance Committee but awaits a full vote by the chamber.
Many beneficiaries have questions. Here’s what we know.
Are my benefits at risk?
Only Congress can make changes to the program’s benefits, which are sent to 73 million people each month. But hollowing out critical pieces of the program’s operations also presents risks, current and former employees said, especially at an agency like Social Security, which has complex policy rules and an aging technical infrastructure. The employees serving the public have institutional knowledge that takes time to acquire and master.
But the agency announced plans to cut about 12 percent of its work force, or roughly 7,000 employees, when staffing is already at a 50-year low. Not having enough seasoned staff to handle the rising tide of baby boomers and other claimants, as well as the complex system that pushes out payments, could threaten its ability to serve the public and potentially delay benefits.
Some cracks have already begun to show, with increased system outages to the agency’s online services, including my Social Security accounts. Field staff members say various outages have always occurred, but not at the frequency they’re experiencing now.
So far, the technology offices are losing 326 members of their 1,600-person staff, according to the union that represents many agency workers. Employees have said more cuts are expected.
Employees inside the agency said they agreed that modernization was needed and that there were plenty of efficiencies to be found. But making haphazard cuts to critical staff before making changes to technology and processes is a risky endeavor, current and former employees and executives said.
Many of those employees specialize in maintaining Social Security’s complex set of computer systems, in which dozens of web applications are layered on top of a programming language developed in the 1970s. As crucial members of the technical staff leave the agency, there are fewer experienced hands to perform routine maintenance and address issues when they arise.
Will it become more difficult to file for benefits?
I’ve recently heard from many readers who have had different experiences. Some have filed for retirement benefits online without any issues, and began receiving them within 30 days. But others have been unable to log in to their Social Security accounts to download tax documents, have struggled to make appointments for field offices or have waited for several hours on the phone to reach a customer service representative.
Your experience may vary based on where you live, the staffing levels nearby or the phone centers you reach. Calls to the agency have risen 30 percent from last year, according to agency data, with more people getting “polite disconnects,” where a prerecorded message tells callers to try again later.
The agency has said it has “not permanently closed or announced the permanent closure” of any field offices. But many of them are losing critical mass. More than three dozen offices are each losing at least a quarter of their staff. The agency has said it plans to reassign more employees to the front lines, but those details are still unclear, and it will take time to retrain workers.
Many former executives and policy experts are concerned about rising system outages as more employees depart, which can also affect individuals’ access to benefits.
Do I need to go to a local office to prove my identity?
If you are already receiving benefits, you do not need to go to a Social Security field office to prove your identity. In fact, the agency recently put out several messages on social media platforms stating that enrolled beneficiaries do not need to do anything.
What policy changes are being made?
Starting on April 14, the agency will no longer allow people to use its phone services to file for retirement and survivor benefits or to make changes to their direct deposit information. Instead, they’ll need to file online or go into a field office, which is expected to create longer lines as the staff is thinning out.
The change has been curtailed since it was initially announced, and it no longer applies to people signing up for disability insurance, Medicare or Supplemental Security Income. Still, the policy could be rolled back further, as pressure mounts from advocacy groups like AARP, which said the changes were “likely to only exacerbate the ongoing customer service crisis.”
What happens when a beneficiary is mistakenly paid too much?
During the Biden administration, the agency said it would no longer withhold a full monthly payment to claw back overpayments — which are often caused by agency errors — but would instead withhold a maximum of 10 percent until the balance was repaid. The goal was to avoid creating a financial hardship for beneficiaries, who often rely on these payments.
The Trump administration has reversed the policy and resumed collecting the entire check until the overpayment is repaid.
Is my personal information at risk?
Potentially. The agency keeps vast troves of personally identifiable information, including earnings records and medical information, at least some of which members of Mr. Musk’s team have sought access to. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order barring the agency from granting DOGE workers access to sensitive records stored in its systems, or keeping any data they may have already taken.
What sort of false information is circulating about the program?
Social Security has a 99.7 percent payment accuracy rate, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, while 0.5 percent of its budget goes to administrative costs.
Mr. Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Mr. Musk and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick have spread falsehoods about rampant fraud inside the program, often even after their claims have been quickly debunked. Many current and former employees, along with policymakers and advocates, are concerned that they’re trying to undermine trust in the program.
-
Mr. Musk continues to repeat unsubstantiated claims that social insurance programs like Social Security are used as a “gigantic magnetic force” that attracts “illegal aliens” from all over the world. There is no evidence to support that, and undocumented workers actually pay more into Social Security than they receive in benefits. The program receives about $20 billion in net cash flow from undocumented workers each year, the agency told The New York Times last year.
-
After learning that millions of people in the database did not have recorded deaths, Mr. Musk and Mr. Trump claimed that millions of dead people were receiving payments. As my colleagues have reported, there aren’t zombie beneficiaries, a conclusion the agency reached in 2023, when it said cleaning up the database wasn’t worth the investment because almost none of the beneficiaries were being paid.
-
Mr. Musk, and most recently Mr. Vance, made the false claim that 40 percent of calls to the agency are made by fraudsters. That allegation seems to stem from a statistic that the agency released, but that was misunderstood: Criminals try to redirect beneficiaries’ deposits into their own accounts — and 40 percent of that direct deposit fraud is associated with someone calling the agency to try to change bank information, while the other 60 percent is attempted online. (My colleague Linda Qiu has provided a more detailed explanation.)
Musk calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Why?
Mr. Musk is not the first to refer to the program as a Ponzi scheme, which is a criminal investment fraud where early investors are paid with money collected from later investors in order to create the illusion of a profit or investment returns.
Social Security is not an investment scheme. It’s an insurance program that provides retirement, survivors and disability benefits to roughly 73 million people. But critics like Mr. Musk often turn to that analogy because Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program, which means that the incoming payroll contributions that finance the program are used to pay for benefits to eligible retirees, disabled workers and survivors.
What would it mean to privatize Social Security?
Social Security is a public program, funded by payroll taxes and run by civic servants, who, like all federal workers, take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Revenue is largely invested in Treasury bonds. The program is not overseen by Wall Street firms, taxpayers do not pay high fees for investment management and its systems are largely operated and maintained by federal employees.
Privatizing Social Security, in part or entirely, could take different forms. Instead of running most of the machinery, for example, the government could outsource more of it to for-profit corporations, which would be in keeping with Mr. Trump’s ethos, though it would increase the program’s costs.
But privatization usually refers to establishing individual private accounts, an idea that was last thrust into the public debate roughly two decades ago by President George W. Bush, who proposed diverting some payroll taxes into investment accounts. The idea faced fierce public opposition, and it hasn’t gained any traction since.
Privatization had been suggested as a way to strengthen the program’s finances, though most proposals would hasten the depletion of the program’s trust fund, reduce guaranteed benefits and require borrowing. It would also fundamentally shift the underpinnings of the program toward becoming one based on notions of property and private ownership, and away from social insurance, where risks are pooled and spread across a population.
Proponents of Social Security have laid out incremental changes that would shore up its finances without such major shifts.
Larry Fink, the chief executive of the investment giant BlackRock, recently raised the idea at a conference, suggesting private accounts to supplement the program.
How is Social Security funded?
President Franklin D. Roosevelt intended the program to be self-sufficient. It has a dedicated revenue source, primarily from payroll taxes (also known as FICA taxes). In many cases, workers split the burden with their employers; each currently pays 6.2 percent on earnings up to $176,100, for a total of 12.4 percent. By law, Social Security, unlike Medicare, cannot use money from the federal budget’s general revenues to pay benefits.
The payroll taxes go into the agency’s trust funds. When there is a surplus, the extra money is largely invested in a special type of Treasury security that pays interest to the trust fund.
Does Social Security contribute to the deficit?
No, though it depends on whom you ask.
Because Social Security is a self-contained system, cutting benefits would not shrink the deficit. President Ronald Reagan explained its effect on the budget in this 1984 clip: “If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce a deficit. It would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget.”
Although Social Security is considered “off budget,” economists and government prognosticators may also view it as part of the so-called unified budget, which includes all federal activities when evaluating everything that affects the economy. From that perspective, Social Security can make the deficit look larger.
Is the program facing financial trouble?
Social Security has experienced a financing shortfall for years, partly because of demographic changes. Falling birthrates mean fewer people are paying into the program, thousands of baby boomers are retiring daily and retirees are living longer and collecting benefits for longer periods. In addition, a larger share of the country’s income base is not subject to the tax, compared with years past. This is because an ever-growing share of high earners’ income is not subject to payroll taxes.
As a result of these shifts, the trust fund that pays the program’s retiree benefits is expected to run dry in 2033, when tax revenue will be enough to pay 79 percent of scheduled benefits. That means beneficiaries’ checks would be reduced by 21 percent if Congress did not intervene and make fixes to bolster the program.
Several of Mr. Trump’s policy initiatives, if enacted, are expected to worsen that shortfall.
How much of Americans’ spending does Social Security account for?
Using one measure, U.S. consumer spending is $20 trillion annually. Assuming all beneficiaries spend their payments in a given year — or roughly $1.6 trillion — that would fund about 7.5 percent of spending.
“That’s huge,” said Jason Fichtner, who held several positions at Social Security, where he was appointed by Mr. Bush, including chief economist. “Regardless of the measure you use, Social Security benefits provide the economic security for millions of Americans and is the primary source of income for many people over age 65.”
“Without Social Security, 22 million more adults and children would fall below the poverty line,” he added. “While the macro economy would withstand a short shock due to a disruption in Social Security benefits, the impact on many households could be insurmountable.”
Does the government ‘raid’ the program’s trust funds?
No.
When there is a surplus of payroll tax revenue, it’s invested in a special type of Treasury security, which pays interest to the trust fund. Since the trust fund money is invested in Treasury securities, the money is essentially being lent to the federal government (to use however it wants, and it must eventually be repaid).
That’s where the confusion arises and why some people believe that the trust fund is used to pay for things unrelated to the program. But it’s really no different from what happens when the government sells Treasury securities to other investors, like China.
