The Social Security Administration plans to shed 7,000 employees as the Trump administration looks for ways to cut federal spending.

The agency on Friday confirmed the figure — which will bring its total staff down to 50,000 from 57,000.

Previous reports that the Social Security Administration planned for a 50% reduction to its headcount are “false,” the agency said.

Nevertheless, the aim of 7,000 job cuts has prompted concerns about the agency’s ability to continue to provide services, particularly benefit payments, to tens of millions of older Americans when its staff is already at a 50-year low.

“It’s going to extend the amount of time that it takes for them to have their claim processed,” said Greg Senden, a paralegal analyst who has worked at the Social Security Administration for 27 years.

“It’s going to extend the amount of time that they have to wait to get benefits,” said Senden, who also helps the American Federation of Government Employees oversee Social Security employees in six central states.

Officials at the White House and the Social Security Administration were not available for comment at press time.

More from Personal Finance:
Trump, DOGE job cuts may be biggest in history
Funding freeze stymies Biden-era consumer energy rebates
Trump, Musk float idea of $5,000 ‘DOGE dividend’ checks

The Social Security Administration on Friday said it anticipates “much of” the staff reductions needed to reach its target will come from resignations, retirement and offers for Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments, or VSIP. 

More reductions could come from “reduction-in-force actions that could include abolishment of organizations and positions” or reassignments to other positions, the agency said. Federal agencies must submit their reduction-in-force plans by March 13 to the Office of Personnel Management for approval.

Former Social Security Administration Commissioner Martin O’Malley last week told CNBC.com that the continuity of benefit payments could be at risk for the first time in the program’s history.

“Ultimately, you’re going to see the system collapse and an interruption of benefits,” O’Malley said. “I believe you will see that within the next 30 to 90 days.”

Other experts say the changes could affect benefits, though it remains to be seen exactly how.

“It’s unclear to me whether the staff cuts are more likely to result in an interruption of benefits, or an increase in improper payments,” said Charles Blahous, senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a former public trustee for Social Security and Medicare.

Improper payments happen when the agency either overpays or underpays benefits due to inaccurate information.

With fewer staff, the Social Security Administration will have to choose between making sure all claims are processed, which may lead to more improper payments, or avoiding those errors, which could lead to processing delays, Blahous said.

Disability benefits, which require more agency staff attention both to process initial claims and to continue to verify beneficiaries are eligible, may be more susceptible to errors compared to retirement benefits, he added.

The Social Security Administration’s funding for administrative costs comes out of its trust funds, which are also used to pay benefits. Based on current projections, the trust funds will be depleted in the next decade and Social Security will not be able to pay full benefits at that time, unless Congress acts sooner.

The efforts to cut costs at the Social Security Administration would likely only help the trust fund solvency “in some miniscule way,” said Andrew Biggs, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

What President Donald Trump is likely looking to do broadly is reset the baseline on government spending and employment, he said.

“I’m not disagreeing with the idea that the agency could be more efficient,” Biggs said. “I just wonder whether you can come up with that by cutting the positions first and figuring out how to have the efficiencies later.”

As the Trump administration overhauls the student loan system, many borrowers pursuing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program are worried about its future.

“There’s a lot of panicking by PSLF borrowers due to the uncertainty,” said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.

PSLF, which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2007, allows certain not-for-profit and government employees to have their federal student loans canceled after 10 years of payments.

Here’s what borrowers in the program need to know about recent changes affecting the program.

While it’s frustrating not to be inching toward loan forgiveness for the time being, an option down the road may help, said Betsy Mayotte, president of The Institute of Student Loan Advisors, a nonprofit.

The Education Department’s Buyback opportunity lets people pay for certain months that didn’t count, if doing so brings them up to 120 qualifying payments.

For example, time spent in forbearances or deferments that suspended your progress can essentially be cashed in for qualifying payments.

The extra payment must total at least as much as what you have paid monthly under an IDR plan, according to Studentaid.gov.

Borrowers who’ve now been pursuing PSLF for 10 years or more should put in their buyback request sooner than later, Kantrowitz said.

“The benefit is likely to be eliminated by the Trump administration,” he said.

Borrowers have already long complained of inaccurate payment counts under the PSLF program. While the student loan repayment options are tweaked, people could see more errors, Kantrowitz said.

“A borrower’s payment history and other student loan details are more likely to get corrupted during a transition,” he said.

As a result, he said, those pursuing PSLF should print out a copy of their payment history on StudentAid.gov.

“It would also be a good idea to create a spreadsheet showing all of the qualifying payments so they have their own count,” Kantrowitz said.

With the PSLF help tool, borrowers can search for a list of qualifying employers and access the employer certification form. Try to fill out this form at least once a year, Kantrowitz added.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury on Sunday announced it won’t enforce the penalties or fines associated with the Biden-era “beneficial ownership information,” or BOI, reporting requirements for millions of domestic businesses. 

Enacted via the Corporate Transparency Act in 2021 to fight illicit finance and shell company formation, BOI reporting requires small businesses to identify who directly or indirectly owns or controls the company to the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as FinCEN.

After previous court delays, the Treasury in late February set a March 21 deadline to comply or risk civil penalties of up to $591 a day, adjusted for inflation, or criminal fines of up to $10,000 and up to two years in prison. The reporting requirements could apply to roughly 32.6 million businesses, according to federal estimates.     

More from Personal Finance:
Tax breaks, free college: How a Kansas town is enticing people to move there
Social Security may see ‘interruption of benefits’ due to DOGE: ex-commissioner
You can still lower your 2024 tax bill or boost your refund with these moves 

The rule was enacted to “make it harder for bad actors to hide or benefit from their ill-gotten gains through shell companies or other opaque ownership structures,” according to FinCEN.

In addition to not enforcing BOI penalties and fines, the Treasury said it would issue a proposed regulation to apply the rule to foreign reporting companies only. 

President Donald Trump praised the news in a Truth Social post on Sunday night, describing the reporting rule as “outrageous and invasive” and “an absolute disaster” for small businesses.

Other experts say the Treasury’s decision could have ramifications for national security.

“This decision threatens to make the United States a magnet for foreign criminals, from drug cartels to fraudsters to terrorist organizations,” Scott Greytak, director of advocacy for anticorruption organization Transparency International U.S., said in a statement.

Greg Iacurci contributed to this reporting.