Monthly Social Security checks are a cornerstone of support in the households of millions of vulnerable Americans around the country. As such, any changes to the system, even the most seemingly minor ones, could result in severe and potentially irreversible repercussions.
A recent change to the manner in which a beneficiary’s identity is verified is sparking much controversy from all fronts. This change is coming hot on the heels of the recent downsizing of the workforce that took place at the Social Security Administration (SSA) and to no one’s surprise, it is the same vulnerable Americans reliant on these monthly checks who will the suffer the most as a result.
New Social Security cuts to impact millions
Since coming into leadership, the Trump Administration has been making several sweeping changes to the SSA — from the introduction of the Department of Government Efficiency to cutbacks within the SSA — and many critics are beginning to show signs of great concern and fear regarding the implications of these changes.
“When people can’t get their benefits for any reason, that is a benefit cut,” one advocate asserted.
The words of this advocate rings especially true when considering the recent analysis that was put out last Friday. This analysis suggests that the cuts to Social Security operations nationwide as proposed by the Trump Administration will result in a “significant new burden for millions of people, particularly those who live in rural areas or have transportation or mobility difficulties.”
The SSA recently updated its system to discontinue the option of verifying one’s identity over the phone. Direct deposit banking details can no longer be updated via telephone either. Instead, recipients will now have to use a “a multifactor authentication process that includes a one-time PIN code” or alternatively, visit their nearest Social Security office in-person.
Despite Trump officials within the SSA claiming that this policy change is aimed at curbing fraud, the analysis, conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), warns that “the agency’s own figures show that direct deposit fraud is a very small problem—less than one-hundredth of one percent of benefits are misdirected.”
According to a document from the agency regarding the estimated burden figures, approximately 2 million recipients will now be compelled to visit a SSA office ahead of the new changes. This could spell trouble for many when considering how “6 million live more than a 45-mile trip away from the nearest Social Security field office,” as per an April analysis from CBPP.
“The new PIN code requirement will be impossible for many beneficiaries to meet,” according to the CBPP’s Friday analysis. “Many seniors and people with disabilities lack internet service, computers or smartphones, or the technological savvy to navigate SSA’s online services.”
“The PIN requirement expects callers to complete a multi-step, multifactor authentication and generate a PIN code while on the phone with an agent. Or if they don’t have an account, they must hang up, establish an online account, then call back—a not-insignificant inconvenience when most callers to SSA do not reach an agent on the first try, and the wait time for a call back from SSA averages 2.5 hours,” the analysis further revealed.
What are people saying?
“The Trump administration and its goons are waging a full scale war against Social Security. They are forcing millions of Americans into Social Security offices at the same time they are cutting a huge percentage of the workforce,” Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works stated.
“They are forcing millions of Americans into Social Security offices at the same time they are cutting a huge percentage of the workforce,” Lawson added. “The Trump-Musk regime has one goal: Wreak Social Security so they can rob it. When people can’t get their benefits for any reason, that is a benefit cut.”
Recent reports have further confirmed that employees at the SSA are indeed struggling to keep up with service delivery to more than 70 million beneficiaries in the aftermath of the cutbacks.