New Social Security Commissioner Politicizes The Trusted Agency

On July 3rd, just before fireworks lit up the skies, a quieter explosion took place in the inboxes of Social Security stakeholders, observers, and experts across the country. See New York Times’ Tara Siegal Bernard’s coverage.

It was a Social Security blog — oddly celebratory, unusually partisan and containing inaccurate statements — from the brand-new Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), Frank Bisignano. Titled “Social Security Applauds Passage of Legislation Providing Historic Tax Relief for Seniors,” the statement praised the so-called “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” President Trump’s signature 2025–2026 budget bill, which happens to be one of the most unpopular pieces of recent legislation: only 29% of Americans support the bill; 49% oppose it.

Social Security Statement Is Wrong

But there’s a problem: the bill doesn’t do anything directly to Social Security and the blog said it did, “The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples.” That statement is wrong. And, indirectly, the bill will hurt seniors through Social Security and Medicare cuts.

To be sure, the legislation includes a more generous standard deduction for middle and upper class seniors but it didn’t – and couldn’t – touch Social Security’s taxes on income. That’s because under the Senate’s Byrd Rule, reconciliation bills can’t include provisions that don’t directly impact the federal budget. A Social Security Commissioner should know that.

I was disappointed that one of Commissioner Frank Bisignano’s first public statements was inaccurate. The Social Security Administration plays a vital role in the lives of millions, and its leadership must be supported by expert staff and guided by a clear, accurate understanding of the program’s mission and structure.

I thought this was a rookie mistake. However, other trends and policies affecting Social Security suggest the agency is becoming increasingly politicized, which may explain its glowing endorsement of a partisan and unpopular piece of legislation.

A Shift From A Trustworthy Social Security Administration To A Politicized One

Social Security Was Trusted

For 90 years, the SSA has enjoyed a rare status in American government: trusted, efficient, and above the political fray. Checks were mailed on time. Customer service was once rated among the highest in the American Customer Satisfaction Index – until relentless budget cuts started to degrade it.

A reason for the trust is that traditionally, SSA Commissioners have remained neutral on legislation unless it directly affected Social Security’s rules, administration, or benefit structure. Mr. Bisignano, a respected former Mastercard executive and Trump appointee to the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, is widely praised for his strong private-sector background in financial systems and digital payments. But with no prior experience in public administration, he may not yet understand the unique trust SSA must maintain as a nonpartisan agency.

So, I’ll say it again: this doesn’t feel like a rookie mistake—it feels more like part of a troubling pattern.

Social Security Employees Will Become More Political

Economist Kathleen Romig, from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities lays out how the Trump administration is politicizing the Social Security Administration in ways that threaten its core mission.

The Trump administration’s proposal to allow the President to unilaterally reclassify civil servants as “policy-influencing,” strips them of traditional job protections and undermines the expectation of their political neutrality. The change would enable the administration to fire, demote, or reduce the pay of thousands of federal employees without due process, regardless of performance. Critics warn this would lead to unprecedented politicization of the U.S. civil service.

To punctuate the trend of politicization, Romig points out that in 2024 the Social Security Administration had roughly one political appointee for every 3000 civil servants. The proposed Trump rule would change that ratio to 1 in every 5 civil servant staff. Which is a 500 times increase in political appointment saturation.

And as the political concentration of Social Security employees increases, the number of experienced civil servants assisting Social Security beneficiaries falls: SSA’s operating budget fell by 13% from 2010 to 2023, adjusted for inflation, while the number of beneficiaries grew by 21%.

Further politicizing the Social Security Administration, the agency has ended its cooperative agreements with the Retirement and Disability Research Centers’, disrupting its longstanding tradition of supporting impartial research and analysis – cutting funding for six universities (including ours): University of Wisconsin, Boston College, NBER, University of Maryland, University of Michigan, and CUNY and The New School.

Politicizing Social Security threatens not only SSA’s effectiveness but also the public’s trust. There is strong evidence that people’s fear of Elon Musk and DOGE’s control of Social Security caused people to claim their benefits early thus reducing their lifetime benefits.

The Big Beautiful Bill Accelerates Social Security Insolvency From 2033 to 2032

The most recent 2025 Social Security Trustees Report forecasted a 23% benefit cut if no new revenue is added by 2033 – just eight years from now. But the recent partisan and unpopular bill (no Democrat voted for it) will accelerate insolvency to 2032, seven years from now.

Without the bill, the taxation of benefits would have added $140 billion to the Social Security and Medicare Trust fund by 2027, because the first Trump 2017 tax cuts would have expired and higher-income seniors would have paid higher Social Security benefit taxes according to the conservative think tank, Committee for A Responsible Federal Budget.

2032 is not a distant cliff—it’s a steep drop for current and future Social Security beneficiaries who are already under strain.

Retirement Inequality Is Stark And Social Security Is In Trouble: No Time To Politicize It

Social Security is absolutely essential. It currently supports 73.6 million Americans, including retirees, disabled workers, and survivors. For over half of older beneficiaries, it supplies more than half of their income. For one in four, it is nearly their only income. Yet the average benefit is just $1,976 per month, barely above the poverty line. A 23% cut would be a humanitarian disaster.

As my coauthor, Drystan Phillips, of the Retirement Equity Lab at The New School documents, America’s retirement system has been unraveling for 40 years. Traditional pensions have disappeared. Savings have stalled. Long-term care is unaffordable. The experiment in 401(k)s and other defined-contribution plans has largely failed.

The New School’s report shows:

• 40% of the labor force had no retirement plan in 1983; that number had not changed by 2025.
• The median retirement account balance for the bottom 50% is $0.
• Meanwhile, the top 10% of households have over $600,000 in median retirement wealth and the average is in the millions. Our research found this top group enjoyed almost all the gains in wealth since 1992.
• And the budget bill just passed will make the inequality between rich and struggling seniors even worse, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Yale Budget Lab. The new senior higher deduction will mostly benefit middle- and upper-middle-class households (because almost half of seniors have such low income they don’t pay income tax – and so the deduction is meaningless ) and Medicaid seniors – about 4 million – will face cuts according to the health care think tanks KKF.

The Stakes Are Too High: Social Security Can’t Be Politicized

Social Security is not a side program. Politicizing the SSA risks more than norms of communication – politicizing the program for short term political points threatens the most effective anti-poverty program in U.S. history and the most important source of retirement income for most Americans (see footnote) by undermining the effectiveness and accuracy of the program and the public’s trust in the institution.

There are simple and well-known revenue solutions that could prevent these cuts and even improve benefits. Let’s hope Commissioner Bisignano channels his considerable private-sector acumen and takes up and embraces the responsibility of his post to fight hard for Social Security’s solvency – not just praise political bills. Many experts and stakeholders can help and encourage him.

American workers, seniors, and their dependents can’t afford a benefit cut. Retirement security is already threadbare. We are down to the bone.