As we reported in our October newsletter, the Social Security Administration (SSA) included in its Spring 2025 Regulatory Agenda a proposal to dramatically change the rules it uses to determine whether a person can work in its disability determinations. After what The Washington Post described an “uproar” from advocates and others concerned about its impact on claimants, SSA has since abandoned its plan. Advocates applauded the decision. Experts had warned that the proposal would fundamentally alter how disability is evaluated, particular for older workers. 

The proposed regulatory rule change, referred to by some as the “Mega-Reg,” was never released by SSA, but The Washington Post and others had reported that the proposal was carried over from the first Trump Administration, and would have made it more difficult to qualify for disability benefits. It was reported that the proposal would have eliminated age as a criterion in disability determination process. The consideration of age is rooted in the statutory requirements, and its elimination would be a radical departure from the current framework for disability determinations. 42 U.S.C. § 223(d)(2)(A). 

The proposal would also have rescinded the “Grid rules.” Formally known as the Medical-Vocational Guidelines—the Grid rules help adjudicators determine disability by combining a claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity to assess whether they can adjust to other work. 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2. The Grids were originally adopted to bring uniformity to disability determinations by applying the same structured criteria. POMS DI 25025.005. 

Advocates and experts warned that the Mega-Reg would disproportionately harm older workers, especially those in regions with limited employment opportunities. ProPublica highlighted claimants likely to be impacted by the change, including 50- to 60-year-olds without a high school education who have a history of physical, demanding work such as construction, logging, and coal mining.  A report by the Urban Institute, estimated the proposed changes would have decreased the number of eligible older adults by 30%. Just a 10% reduction would result in 500,000 fewer eligible individuals overall. 

Concerns over Social Security Administration (SSA) data-sharing practices intensified as new details emerged regarding the handling of SSA systems by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and as SSA issues a series of modified Systems of Records Notices (SORNs). The events highlight several significant risks posed by expanded inter-agency access to sensitive SSA data, including the risk of improper voter purges. 

In a court filing dated January 16, 2026, SSA revealed that it had previously misstated the extent of DOGE access to sensitive SSA data. The filing disclosed that DOGE staff had signed a “voter data agreement” with an advocacy group focused on overturning election results in select states, potentially enabling the use of SSA data to match against voter rolls for political purposes. DOGE personnel also used an unapproved third-party Cloudflare server to store or transmit SSA data, and SSA continues to be unable to verify what information was shared or whether it remains accessible.

A DOGE staffer also transmitted an encrypted file the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) believed to contain the names and addresses of approximately 1,000 individuals drawn from SSA systems.   

Based on the coordination with an advocacy group to analyze state voter rolls using SSA data, SSA made two Hatch Act referrals to the Office of Special Counsel.  

The corrections to the record were made in American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration, No. 1:25-cv-00596-ELH, a case alleging that SSA violated federal privacy laws in unlawfully granting DOGE personnel access to SSA systems. More details about the lawsuit are in our April 2025 newsletter. 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has announced an increase in the annual contribution limit for Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts for the 2026 tax year. The new aggregate contribution limit is set at $20,000 compared to the previous year’s limit of $19,000. This adjustment reflects inflation-indexed increases tied to the federal gift tax exclusion. In addition to this standard rate adjustment, there is also a major expansion in ABLE eligibility that took effect on January 1, 2026. 

ABLE accounts allow eligible individuals with disabilities to save for qualified disability-related expenses without jeopardizing eligibility for federal means-tested benefits. The dollar limit represents the total amount that may be contributed to an ABLE account during the tax year from all sources combined, including contributions made by the beneficiary, family members, and others. 

Advocates should note a significant expansion in age eligibility that just took effect under the ABLE Age Adjustment Act, which expands eligibility for ABLE accounts to individuals whose disability began before age 46, a substantial increase from the longstanding cutoff of age 26. 

This expansion will open ABLE accounts to millions of people who previously did not qualify, including those whose disabilities arose later in life due to chronic illness, injury, or military service. The ABLE Age Adjustment Act passed in 2022 but was not scheduled to take effect until January 1, 2026. The change is widely regarded as the most significant improvement to the ABLE Act since its passage in 2014, dramatically widening access to tax-advantaged savings and greater financial autonomy for a substantially larger eligible population. More about the 2022 passage can be found in our January 2023 newsletter.  

Together, the new contribution limit and expanded age-of-onset rule will allow far more individuals to benefit from the protections and flexibility that ABLE accounts offer.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) continues to implement nationwide structural changes that affect both the Office of Hearings Operations (OHO), now known as Hearings, and state-based Disability Determination Services (DDS).  

In a November 2025 “Dear Colleagues” letter, SSA announced a Hearing “Hub” structure to replace the previous regional organization of the OHOs. Unlike the prior model, the Hubs are not geographically grouped. For example, hearing offices in New York state could be Hub A (New York and Varick hearing offices) or Hub B (all other hearing offices in the state).  

The Dear Colleague letter directs representatives to address general inquiries related to Hearings to a designated mailbox for each Hub, DA.HRNGHubA.Rep.Mail@ssa.gov and DA.HRNGHubB.Rep.Mail@ssa.gov, respectively. 

Related to the DDSs, Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge Jay Ortis (previously the Acting Deputy Commissioner) has reported that there is also a restructuring initiative, which assigns three Portfolio Executive Leads (PELs) to oversee the DDSs, aiming to address critical performance challenges. These offices have recently experienced significant, measurable decreases in productivity and high rates of staff attrition. The 3 PELs will focus on reversing these trends.  

Advocates are anxious to see how this restructuring plays out and if it will be a benefit to their clients.  

Representatives who rely on mailing filings, appeals, or other time-sensitive documents should be aware of significant changes in how the United States Postal Service (USPS) handles postmarking. 

Beginning December 24, 2025, the USPS implemented new procedures for dating mail. 90 Fed. Reg. 52883 (Nov. 24, 2025). The postmarking of letters and packages will occur when the items are processed at the postal facility rather than when they are dropped off in a mailbox. As a result, mail may arrive with markings that do not clearly reflect the date the item was mailed. Processing can occur hours or days after deposit. An analysis by the Brookings Institute discussed how this timing gap can clearly create problems when documents will be deemed untimely if not “postmarked” by a certain date.  

Representatives should consider adjusting mailing practices to account for these changes: 

• Use Certified Mail or other USPS services that generate dated mailing receipts and tracking information. 

• Obtain a receipt at the post office counter that clearly reflects the date of mailing. 

• Mail early whenever possible to build in a buffer against processing delays or disputes. 

• Consider electronic filing options and using mySocialSecurity.gov when available. 

• Maintain internal documentation, including copies of envelopes, receipts, and tracking confirmations, in the event timeliness is challenged. 

Bottom line is, USPS postmarking practices have changed, but filing deadlines have not. Until consistent postmarking returns—if it does—advocates should assume that an accurate or visible postmark may not be applied and plan accordingly.  

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — through its Administration for Children and Families (ACF) — has formally notified 39 state governors that their child welfare agencies are improperly diverting earned Social Security survivor benefits intended for children in foster care.  

The letters, sent in December 2025, assert that many state child welfare agencies are intercepting Social Security survivor benefits (which are earned by a child through a deceased parent’s work history) and using them to reimburse state foster care costs — rather than ensuring those funds are available to the youth themselves. 

ACF emphasizes that these are federal benefits earned by the child, not state revenue and that practice undermines the financial security of foster youth, especially as they prepare to transition out of care. 

HHS and the Social Security Administration have signaled they will offer technical assistance and resources to help states revise policies and preserve these benefits for eligible youth.

Eleven states have already adopted policies to protect these benefits for foster youths’ current needs and future use.   

Meanwhile, child welfare advocates continue to work with state legislators and agencies in other states to remove policy provisions that allow benefit diversion. Advocates also highlight that this federal effort aligns with long-standing legislative concerns about states seizing Social Security benefits intended for foster children. 

While beyond the scope of most DAP advocates, it is important to be on notice if state policies divert benefits that belong to clients. New York City suspended this practice in 2022 and in April 2025; a bill was also introduced in New York State (A08036/S07778), to protect benefits of children in foster care.

On January 5, 2026, Arjun Mody was sworn in as the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), where he will serve as the agency’s Chief Operating Officer for a term running through January 19, 2031. Mody’s appointment follows confirmation by the United States Senate on December 18, 2025. Arjun Mody succeeds David Fabian Black, who held the position of Deputy Commissioner of Social Security prior to the expiration of his term. 

Before joining SSA, Mody served in senior leadership positions across the federal government. His public-sector career includes service as a Sherpa program official for the Trump–Vance transition — where he helped coordinate presidential nominations —

and leadership roles in the U.S. Senate, including as Staff Director of the Senate Republican Conference.

He also worked in legislative and public affairs positions for several U.S. Senators. He holds degrees from La Salle University, the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, and American University’s Washington College of Law. 

In his new role, Mody will oversee the administration of SSA’s core programs and operations, including policy development and financial management systems for an agency that delivers retirement, disability, and survivor benefits to tens of millions of Americans. 

While the Department of Education has recently overhauled its Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) discharge system with the stated goal of improving access, advocates nationwide are reporting serious implementation problems that are creating new barriers for borrowers with disabilities. 

Since its inception, the Higher Education Act of 1965 has offered debt relief for disabled borrowers with federal student debt. There have been decades of policy and program reforms in an effort to expand eligibility and ease administrative burdens. In sum, TPD provides that borrowers who are totally and permanently disabled may have their federal student loans discharged.  

The current issues arising from the program began with a 2024 transition. In April 2024, Federal Student Aid (FSA) moved the processing of specialty student loan programs—including TPD—from external student loan servicers to FSA. Nelnet would stop processing TPD applications, and  borrowers would instead submit TPD applications directly through StudentAid.gov, which other contractors would manage on the back end under FSA’s supervision. Reportedly, the transition was completed in March 2025. 

Of particular interest to disability advocates, since September 2021, recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) should automatically be eligible for TPD student loan discharge, without an application, but recent reports show many recipients are still waiting for relief. 

In theory, quarterly, the Department of Education uses data from the Social Security Administration to identify borrowers receiving SSDI or SSI who meet TPD eligibility criteria. These borrowers should no longer need to submit a formal application - their loans are supposed to be discharged automatically. However, despite the automatic process, advocates report significant delays in approvals. Many borrowers see no updates in their accounts or official notifications even after being flagged as eligible through SSA records. Ongoing system transitions and processing backlogs are slowing relief, leaving some SSD/SSI recipients in limbo. 

In Nunez v. Commissioner of Social Security (2d Cir., 2025), (decided November 25, 2025, but amended on December 29, 2025) the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the proper formulation of a claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) when assessing Social Security disability claims. 

Giovanni Nunez applied for disability benefits due to chronic panic disorder that affected his ability to concentrate and attend work regularly. The Social Security Administration (SSA) initially denied his claim, and the administrative law judge (ALJ) affirmed this decision. However, the Second Circuit found that the ALJ’s RFC determination lacked substantial evidentiary support. 

The record included testimony from the plaintiff, a vocational expert, and five medical professionals, all of whom opined that he had at least moderate limitations in maintaining concentration, staying on task, and regular work attendance. The ALJ concluded that the plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform unskilled work in a goal-oriented setting, without finding any specific limitations on his ability to stay on task or maintain regular attendance. The vocational expert testified that an individual who was off-task more than 10% of the workday or absent more than one day per month would be unable to maintain employment. 

In the decision, the Second Circuit finds that the ALJ failed to account for the unanimous opinions regarding Nunez’s limitations for staying on task and his need for predictable attendance, despite clear testimony from a vocational expert on how these restrictions affect employability. The court emphasized that expert testimony about essential work requirements must be considered when formulating RFC.  

The case was remanded to SSA for further proceedings with instructions to clarify and properly support the RFC finding. For DAP advocates, Nunez is a reminder of the importance of thorough documentation and linking medical evidence to functional limitations in disability claims. 

The Disability Advocacy Program (DAP) at Manhattan Legal Services (MLS) continues to secure critical victories for clients whose health, income, and housing depend on stable access to their disability benefits. 

One case involved a client who was violently attacked in 2021 and developed PTSD, severe anxiety, and agoraphobia as a result. The client subsequently fell behind on his rent payments and faced eviction due to his inability to work and leave his apartment without medication and support. While the housing unit at MLS addressed the unsafe apartment conditions and prevented the client’s displacement, Lynette Morrow, a DAP attorney, represented him in his Title II claim. The judge found that he met the listing for PTSD and awarded the client approximately $52,000 in retroactive benefits and $1,555 per month. This allowed the client to pay his arrears, stabilize his housing, and qualify for a rent freeze, which in turn allowed him to preserve both his home and his financial security.

A second victory involved a 46‑year‑old individual with limited English proficiency and longstanding impairments from cerebrovascular disease. SSA terminated the client’s SSI benefits following a Continuing Disability Review conducted without a proper interpreter, relying instead on the client’s husband, who also has limited English skills. Benefits were cut off due to alleged noncompliance. DAP Attorney Tariq Khan represented the client at the hearing level, overcoming limited treatment records and a flawed psychological consultative exam by demonstrating significant neurological deficits, strong client testimony, evidence of home health aide support, and medical opinions. The ALJ issued a fully favorable decision, restoring the client’s SSI benefits under Listing 11.04(B). 

Thank you to the MLS DAP team for sharing these success stories. 

The Social Security Administration’s (SSA) telephone service performance remains under scrutiny following the release of a December 2025 audit by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The report, Social Security Administration’s Telephone Metrics, 032517, was initiated at the request of Senator Elizabeth Warren in response to concerns about whether SSA’s publicly reported wait time metrics accurately reflected the real experience of callers seeking assistance through the national 800 number.  

Although the OIG concluded that SSA’s publicly reported telephone metrics were technically accurate, the audit and subsequent reporting note gaps between the numbers SSA publishes and the experience of millions who navigate the agency’s customer service infrastructure.  ​​​​​​

SSA changed the telephone metrics it publishes, and in fiscal year FY 2025 focused on improved Average Speed of Answer (ASA) as a performance goal. In FY 2025, SSA reported that ASA fell to 7 minutes, down from 29.7 minutes in January 2025—a change the agency cast as a major service improvement. But according to the OIG audit, ASA does not take into account several important outcomes, including:  

• the time callers spend waiting to receive a callback;  

• wait time experienced by callers who ultimately hang up;  

• wait time experienced by callers who receive busy signals; or 

• wait time experienced calling the local field office.   

In the past few years, there have been several highly publicized court decisions admonishing lawyers who have relied on artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT to draft their court filings. One similar decision issued recently in the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan stands out. 

In sanctioning the plaintiffs for using ChatGPT to draft their briefs, the court in Jarrus v. Governor of Michigan gave a very effective explanation of how large language models (LLMs) work and why generative AI cannot replicate human analysis and reasoning. A major misconception about AI systems is the tendency to mistake language proficiency for "superintelligence." The current AI boom centers on LLMs such as ChatGPT and Gemini that can generate impressively fluent text by predicting word patterns from massive datasets, essentially operating as a “word guesser.” 

Despite this, they are not capable of human reasoning or understanding, particularly when it comes to the law. Essentially, they can’t actually think like a lawyer despite being an impressive talker.  

The court in Jarrus cited neuroscience research that focused on how language and thought are separate processes. 

The Jarrus decision was also notable in that it sanctioned two pro se plaintiffs. Despite the plaintiffs having in forma pauperis status and eligibility for waiver of court fees, the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions against them, a relatively strict measure that serves to warn pro se parties who may be tempted to rely on AI that they are not use it when preparing their court filings. Some consider it a "dead metaphor machine".