Like many other federal agencies, the Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) programs and services have been the subject of dramatic and far-reaching cuts and other changes initiated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) over the past three months. The changes have been expansive and rapid; several have already been partially reversed. Advocates, lawmakers, and others such as former Social Security Commissioners Martin O’Malley and Michael Astrue, have been raising a number of serious  concerns, with increasing urgency, about the impact of these developments on Social Security claimants and the public. 

The Trump Administration and DOGE are stating that its efforts are necessary to reduce “waste and fraud,” at times offering false claims that SSA is paying thousands of dead beneficiaries on accounts of people in their 100s, 200s and older, and stating that DOGE’s efforts had uncovered “shocking levels of incompetence and probable fraud in the Social Security program.”  However, statistics regarding fraud do not support those statements. According to the SSA Office of the Inspector General, less than 1 percent of payments are improper overpayments. Of those that are Title II overpayments, only 3 percent were attributable to fraud or to noncitizens living outside the United States.  

A timeline of many of the developments at SSA was published by Marketwatch, which continues to update the story as of April 25, 2025. There has been extensive coverage by other press outlets. 

Dudek Named New Acting Commissioner  

As reported in the January 2025 newsletter, Michelle King had been named Acting Commissioner of the agency by President’s Trump transition team on January 17, 2017, while a vote to confirm Trump’s nominee for Commissioner, Frank Bisignano, advanced through the Senate. According to several sources, King left abrubtly on Feburary 17, 2025 after a dispute with DOGE over its attempts to access sensitive records maintained by SSA’s data systems. Following her objections, the White House elevated Leland Dudek to replace her as Acting Commissioner and King left SSA, retiring after over 30 years with the agency.  

Until his appointment, Dudek was on administrative leave pending an investigation for circumventing protocols to covertly facilitate DOGE’s access to the agency. He had been working as a senior advisor in SSA’s Office of Program Integrity, and his elevation to Acting Commissioner was made despite his not being in the executive ranks of the agency. 

DOGE’s entry into SSA is the subject of a lawsuit filed in the District Court of Maryland and discussed in more detail later in this newsletter.  

Several lawmakers have called for Dudek’s resignation. But as had been originally expected with King, Dudek’s placement will presumably last until Bisignano is confirmed as Commissioner.  

On April 25, 2025, the Social Security Administration (SSA) issued Emergency Message (EM) 25029 implementing a default withholding rate of up to 50 percent of a person’s monthly benefit for Title II overpayments beginning as of that date. The action partially reverses a change that SSA had made less than two months prior, on March 7, 2025, when SSA had announced by press release that it would reinstate a default overpayment rate of 100 percent.  

Full recoupment for Title II overpayments was SSA’s policy until it was changed about a year ago by then-Commissioner Martin O’Malley. As reported in the April 2024 issue of this newsletter, SSA dropped the “heavy-handed practice” of recouping the entirety of a Social Security beneficiary’s monthly benefit and changed the default rate to ten percent of the monthly benefit or $10, whichever is greater. The changes followed a comprehensive review of overpayment policies launched in response to public outcry about the devastating consequences faced by claimants with huge overpayments.

O’Malley described overpayment-related hardships as “injustices” that “shock our shared sense of equity and good conscience as Americans,” and said that policies aimed at easing the burden of overpayments were “important steps to restore efficiency and humanity to this process.”   SSA issued EM-24011 SEN on March 25, 2024 to implement that change. The EM had a retention date of October 25, 2024. When SSA announced in March that it was reverting to a default of 100 percent, it stated that it would apply the new rule to overpayments issued on or after March 27, 2025.  

Under the new EM, any new Title II overpayment notices issued beginning April 25, 2025 “will provide a default Title II overpayment benefit withholding rate of 50 percent. This default rate will apply if the individual does not request a lower rate of withholding, reconsideration, or waiver. EM-25029 states that the 10 percent rate will apply to all overpayment recovery actions “up through COM 07”. 

In a significant legal challenge, three major labor and retiree organizations—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the Alliance for Retired Americans—filed suit against the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The case, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration, No. 1:25-cv-00596-ELH, alleges that the defendants unlawfully granted DOGE personnel access to sensitive SSA data systems, violating federal privacy laws and administrative procedures.​ Plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward. Thus far, and discussed more below, there has been a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs and the Fourth Circuit has also declined to stay the district court's injunction. 

The plaintiffs contend that DOGE operatives, under the direction of Elon Musk, who is described in the complaint as the “de facto head” of DOGE, were given unauthorized access to SSA's confidential records. These records include personally identifiable information such as Social Security numbers, medical histories, financial data, and employment records.

The complaint asserts that this access was granted without the consent of the individuals affected and without adherence to the requisite legal frameworks, including the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).​  

Central to the lawsuit is the claim that the SSA failed to issue a required System of Records Notice (SORN) before allowing DOGE personnel to access its data systems. Under the Privacy Act, federal agencies must publicly disclose any new or revised systems of records and the routine uses of such records. The plaintiffs argue that the SSA's actions circumvented this requirement, thereby denying affected individuals the opportunity to comment on or contest the changes.​ 

The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief to prevent further unauthorized access to SSA data by DOGE personnel, as well as the removal of any software installed by DOGE on SSA systems. They also request that any data already accessed or altered by DOGE be identified and that measures be taken to mitigate potential harm resulting from these alleged privacy breaches.​ 

In the case American Association of People with Disabilities et al. v. Dudek et al., No. 1:25-cv-00977 (D.D.C.), a coalition of disability rights organizations and individual plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit against top officials at the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), alleging sweeping violations of statutory and constitutional law. The suit, brought by the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), Massachusetts Senior Action Council, and others, accuses SSA leadership - under the influence of Elon Musk, described in the complaint as the “de facto head” of DOGE - of dismantling vital public benefit infrastructure and denying disabled and older Americans their rights to essential services. 

The complaint, filed in April 2025, focuses on recent administrative overhauls that plaintiffs claim have severely degraded the SSA’s ability to serve the public. Among the changes at issue are the closure of the Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (OCREO), elimination of the Office of Transformation, drastic cutbacks to SSA’s national telephone assistance lines, and an alleged consolidation of agency authority that has left local SSA offices overwhelmed and functionally inoperable.

Plaintiffs argue these actions constitute an “unprecedented and unconstitutional assault on Social Security benefits,” particularly affecting people with disabilities who depend on timely and accessible agency services to receive or maintain benefits.

Central to the lawsuit are three major legal claims. First, the plaintiffs contend that the agency’s failure to provide accessible services constitutes a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires federal agencies to ensure meaningful access for individuals with disabilities. Second, the lawsuit asserts that the SSA implemented major policy shifts without proper rulemaking or public input, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Finally, the plaintiffs claim that these abrupt and unannounced changes infringe upon beneficiaries’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, depriving them of protected property interests in Social Security and disability benefits without adequate procedural safeguards. 

Millions of individuals recently received letters related to the Campos Class Action. As reported in the January 2024 issue of Disability Law News, the Campos v. Kijakazi class action lawsuit was filed against the Social Security Administration (SSA), alleging that the SSA wrongfully reduced or denied Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for certain individuals based on the improper counting of in-kind support and maintenance (ISM).  

A settlement was reached on November 30, 2023, and advocates and representatives are finally seeing it trickle down to the recipients this spring. A recent February 2025 Emergency Message (EM) (EM-24005 REV 2) offered detailed guidance about the settlement notice and how offices are to be handling the cases.  

In brief, under the Campos settlement, nearly a quarter million SSI recipients are to receive relief if they incurred overpayments during March 2020 to September 2020 that were manually processed.

These overpayments will be waived. If a class member has repaid all or part of the overpayment, they will have back benefits credited to their accounts without having to take any action. The settlement also provided relief to another group of nearly two million more recipients by clarifying the standards by which they can request waivers of overpayments that arose during the COVID-19 National Emergency Period of March 2020 to April 2023.  

The notice typically outlines a recipient’s rights and explains how they will be contacted for further action. While some overpayments will be waived automatically, others will have to rely on the individualized notices for the process to request an overpayment waiver.  

Recently it was reported that Office of Management and Budget (OMB) gave the Social Security Administration (SSA) its proposed budget (fiscal year starting 10/1), which cut funding for the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) from $3 million to zero. Clearly, defunding the Board will bring its work to a halt, but officially ending the Board will require an act of Congress. 

Created by Congress in 1994 as part of the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act, the SSAB was designed to provide independent, bipartisan advice on Social Security policy and administration. SSBA has operated as an oversight and research body, offering reports, recommendations, and analyses intended to ensure the long-term solvency and effectiveness of Social Security.  

The Board was unique in that it had no direct authority over SSA but played a critical role in influencing policy and providing a forum for stakeholder input and public dialogue. 

Some lawmakers are already proposing legislation to reinstate funding or reconstitute the Board under a different structure, though prospects remain uncertain amid a divided Congress. The concern for advocates is that the defunding, and ultimate dismantling, of oversight mechanisms could deepen the risk of mismanagement or political misuse of Social Security funds. We will keep readers apprised of updates with the SSAB. 

In our last newsletter we detailed the changes that the Social Security Fairness Act of 2023. This legislation was aimed at enhancing retirement benefits for public sector employees, including teachers, firefighters, and police officers, by eliminating the government pension offset.  

The implementation of this significant change has not been smooth, with the burden on the affected individuals to ensure proper payment.  The changes were effective January 2025, but the roll-out faced challenges due to a continuing resolution and changes in the Social Security Administration (SSA) with technology and staffing.   

In February 2025, Lee Dudek, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, announced that the original estimate of implementation taking a year or more will only apply to complex cases, and most recipients should see the retroactive payment in March and ongoing monthly change beginning in April due to automated processing. As of March 4, the SSA had paid out more than $7.5 billion in retroactive payments to more than 1.1 million people, with an average retroactive payment of $6,710. However, due to shortcomings with the automation efforts, it is estimated that there are an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 cases still to be processed. 

In a significant move to reshape federal regulatory practices, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14219 on February 19, 2025, titled “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative.” This order mandates a comprehensive review of existing regulations to identify and repeal those deemed unlawful or exceeding statutory authority. Subsequently, on April 9, 2025, the administration released a memorandum directing agencies to expedite the repeal process for such regulations.​ 

EO 14219 required all executive departments and agencies to conduct a 60-day review of their regulations to identify rules that exceed statutory authority, conflict with constitutional principles; or which are potentially unlawful under recent Supreme Court decisions, including West Virginia v. EPA, Seila Law v. CFPB, and NFIB v. OSHA. Alarmingly broad, it targeted “regulations based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition”. 

Following the initial review period, the April 9 memorandum instructed agencies to:​ 

• Immediately repeal regulations identified as clearly exceeding statutory authority or otherwise unlawful; 

• Utilize the "good cause" exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to bypass standard notice-and-comment procedures when necessary; and 

• Coordinate with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to ensure compliance and oversight.​ 

Just prior to the deadline for responsive agency submissions to the White House, on April 11, 2025, OMB also published a notice styled as “Request for Information: Deregulation,” which seeks comments from the broader public on “regulations that are unnecessary, unlawful, unduly burdensome, or unsound.” This brief public Request for Information (RFI) from OMB asks commentators specifically to identify “regulations that stifle American businesses and American ingenuity.” 

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has issued a proposed rule (Docket ID: OPM-2025-0004, RIN 3206-AO80) aimed at increasing accountability within the federal civil service by modifying the employment status and procedural protections of certain policy-influencing positions. The proposal, titled Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service, was published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2025. 

The proposed rule introduces a new category within the excepted service called "Schedule Policy/Career." This is essentially a rebranding of "the prior Trump Administration's proposed "Schedule F," an excepted service category that makes it easier to hire and fire policy-influencing federal workers without due process protections.   

Positions classified under this schedule are intended to be policy-influencing roles that remain career appointments filled on a nonpartisan basis. However, employees in these positions would serve at-will and would not be covered by the procedural protections outlined in chapters 43 and 75 of title 5 of the U.S. Code, which govern performance-based actions and adverse actions, respectively. 

Under the proposed rule, employees whose positions are reclassified into Schedule Policy/Career would lose the procedural protections that typically accompany career civil service positions. This change aims to enhance the ability of agency supervisors to address issues of poor performance or misconduct more efficiently. However, it also raises concerns about the potential erosion of civil service protections and the risk of politicizing career positions.​ 

NASI Task Force Issues Report on AI at SSA 

On April 17, 2025, the National Academy of Social Insurance’s Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (AI), Emerging Technology, and Disability Benefits released its Phase One report on current and future use of AI in, and related technology at, the Social Security Administration (SSA). The report covers how SSA is currently using AI in the disability determination process, the risks involved in using AI in the context of disability benefits, as well as the potential opportunities for program administration that AI may provide.  

The report has been anticipated by advocates as timely. AI is already in use at SSA. For example, SSA recently announced it would complete the rollout of its Hearing Recording and Transcriptions (HeaRT) system in March. The HeaRT system replaces a recording hardware system with a software-only solution that records and produces transcripts for each hearing. SSA claims HeaRT improves efficiencies by providing more accurate automated transcripts through generative AI, leading to fewer hearing delays.   

New AI tools are being developed and introduced by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the Acting Commissioner of Social Security Leland Dudek. Notably, nominee for Commissioner Frank Bisignano has been described as being someone who will apply his finance technology background to aggressively streamline SSA’s processes through AI and other technology. As noted earlier in this newsletter, his testimony at his confirmation hearing highlighted some potential uses of AI.  

Recent reporting about the use of AI in disability benefits programs in other parts of the world, however, have warned about algorithms “misfiring” to wrongfully deny complex cases. The NASI report urges safeguards to protect against similar risks, including  measures to ensure meaningful human review, measures to prevent bias, and adequate governance and oversight. 

After more than 25 years of service and recent retirement as an Administrative Law Judge, Connor O’Brien has begun a new chapter as an Attorney Emeritus with Empire Justice Center. In this brief interview, Connor shares what drew her back into the legal world, how her experience from the bench shapes her advocacy today, and the unique insights she brings to the Disability Advocacy Program (DAP). 

What motivated you to transition from recent retirement as an ALJ to working as an attorney emeritus at Empire Justice Center? 

My decision to retire from federal service was primarily based on personal reasons; I am a new grandmother, I had been with the federal government for over 25 years, and Covid reminded us that life is short and unpredictable.  After a few months of not knowing what day it is, however, I found that perhaps I needed more to engage me in our community.  I have always had great respect for Empire Justice, and, after speaking with some folks from Empire Justice DAP, I decided to carve a niche for myself there.  

How do you think your experience as an ALJ influences the work you do within DAP now? 

I have enormous amount of experience in quickly reviewing a file and determining the basis for the claim, seeing what is missing, and finding a path for the claim.  That said, I am finding that I still have a lot to learn about gathering evidence as the representative — the time that it takes to call sources and explain what we need and why.  And the flaws in the ERE access are a surprise.  I did not realize that the representative cannot simply click on the exhibit list and access the document.  Perhaps educating both SSA and representatives on the differing levels of access and technology will help to create a smoother and more dynamic access in the future?  

What legal issues or work do you find most compelling or rewarding  within DAP? 

Ideally, I hope to assist the DAP program in streamlining our internal processes and developing templates for each level of the disability appeal process.  Right now, we are short- staffed, and I am finding that 20 hours a week goes by quickly.  

What unique perspectives from your time as a judge do you think are most valuable to Empire Justice Center? 

Understanding the pressures put upon "judicially independent ALJs" — time constraints, expectations, expense limitations.  OHO is a small part of a large, complex agency, and, because ALJs are often telling the Agency to change an earlier decision, ALJs are often seen as not contributing to the overall agency goals.   

How do you balance the more structured, formal nature of the judiciary with the often more flexible and advocacy-driven work in a nonprofit setting? 

It is not a balance really, more of a change in perspective.  Fortunately, serving the public is paramount in both settings, so that is refreshingly consistent.  Here, there is a luxury of time with each case, even though that may surprise folks!   

In your experience, how can advocates work alongside the courts to improve outcomes? 

Developing an easily followed format for pre-and post-hearing memos that gives the ALJ and the decision writer a roadmap to a favorable decision is essential.  

The creeping sense of dread and unease on a Sunday evening? It is not just you. Many professionals experience a certain level of anxiety when the sun sets on their Sunday evening and they begin anticipating the scent of their Monday morning coffee. The next day’s to-do list begins to race through their mind like the closing credits of a film. This anxiousness has been coined as the “Sunday scaries” – a very real and common phenomenon.  

In fact, a recent Kickresume survey found 70% of workers feel anxious and experience pre-week stress before the work week, with 39% admitting they’ve taken sick days to cope.

Interestingly, it’s not job dissatisfaction driving the fear: 68% of respondents say they’re at least somewhat happy at work. Instead, the culprits behind the “scaries” stem from a mix of uncertainty, lack of control, and unclear expectations. 

To manage the anxiety, people turn to exercise, binge-watching, and, ironically, even working ahead during their free time. Fortunately, better work-life balance, clearer communication, and flexible schedules and work arrangements can help. And if nothing else, take comfort in this: Monday is only five days from Friday until a national three-day weekend becomes a reality!