In Washington, the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) recent decision to mandate in-person identity verification for both current and new recipients has caused significant concern among lawmakers, advocacy organizations, and program beneficiaries. The requirement arises in tandem with the closure of government offices, which critics argue adds undue burdens to a population already facing challenges.
The fresh stipulation affects individuals needing to ascertain their bank details with the SSA, along with families that can’t validate their child’s details online on the agency’s platform. This move is part of an effort to reduce fraud and inefficiencies that, according to President Donald Trump and his administration, are active issues within the program.
Starting March 31, the agency announced that recipients unable to validate their identities through its online service, “my Social Security,” must visit a local field office for verification. This comes alongside a broader closure plan affecting Social Security field offices nationwide. As per analysis, 47 offices are listed for closure, 26 of which will shut down this year, some possibly as soon as next month.
Advocacy groups warn that this shift, combined with office shutdowns and potential workforce reductions via layoffs, risks causing substantial service delays. Nancy LeaMond from AARP criticized the elimination of phone verification, anticipating increased difficulties and prolonged times for resolving standard customer service issues. She described the announcement as unexpected and hastily implemented.
LeaMond emphasized the need for transparency from the SSA regarding service changes, urging consultations with affected elderly Americans since any service delays could severely impact their economic well-being. The agency revealed plans to commence staff training for the new policy shortly.
The proposed changes prompted rapid criticism from Democrats, with 62 House members expressing worry in a letter to SSA’s acting commissioner, Leland Dudek. They highlighted potential disadvantages for remote residents and those with limited internet access. They advised against obligating beneficiaries to rely solely on online solutions or travel to field offices.
Sandi Bachom, an 80-year-old beneficiary from New York, expressed anxiety over potential disruptions in receiving her benefits, emphasizing her lack of familial support. Having previously relied on Social Security during difficult times, Bachom is concerned about how these changes may affect her livelihood.
In response, Harrison Fields, a representative from the White House, defended the measure as a means to combat fraud, designed with seniors’ welfare in mind. Dudek, unveiling the policy adjustments, identified significant losses, with direct deposit fraud costing the agency approximately $100 million annually. Nonetheless, congressional findings since January 2013 have noted redirected funds totaling $33.5 million among nearly 21,000 beneficiaries.
The SSA distributes about $1.6 trillion yearly to retirees and those with disabilities. Critics like Nancy Altman of Social Security Works argue that phasing out phone identification adds undue complexity for American claimants, potentially overwhelming the system and leading to delays.
Furthermore, Kentucky’s Governor Andy Beshear expressed his concerns for Kentucky’s elderly residents on fixed incomes, fearing the travel demands posed by the new requirement. Beshear criticized the intentions behind the policy, suggesting an objective to disenfranchise eligible individuals.
Comments were also directed at Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, accused of seeking federal government downsizing and pushing unsupported claims of systemic fraud within Social Security.
Bachom, relying on her timely monthly Social Security payment, voiced fears shared by many seniors worried about their financial security following these policy updates. “We’re all concerned, and at this age, we shouldn’t have to fear being exploited,” she remarked.
