After nearly 35 years with the Social Security Administration, Michele Santa Maria opted for early retirement, partly out of fear that she might be laid off amid significant reductions in staff during the Trump administration. Now, proposed changes in Congress could threaten a vital component of her federal retirement benefits.
Santa Maria started her career right after high school, working at a Social Security field office in Chula Vista, California, in May 1990. Initially, she answered phones and sorted emails, gradually advancing to customer service where she managed various claims, including retirement and disability claims.
Eventually, she became a technical expert, even training others while navigating some complicated cases. While she finds the work rewarding at times, she admits the outdated computer systems can make things tedious.
“Sure, it’s a good job, and we believe in our work, which keeps us going,” she remarks. “We just want to make it to that retirement point.”
The formula for federal retirement benefits can be quite complex, but typically, federal workers with at least 30 years of service can retire at age 57 with a full pension, which is what motivated her continued service.
However, now it seems Congress is looking to cut those benefits. Legislation recently passed in the House may drastically reduce her expected retirement income, putting her in a precarious situation. “This puts me in a terrible position,” she says.
Federal employees nationwide engage in crucial and often intricate work that many Americans depend on. Yet, despite the significance of their roles, the salaries are often underwhelming. Still, many stay with federal jobs for the potential retirement benefits, which are generally more generous compared to the private sector.
The Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) is described as a three-legged stool consisting of pensions, savings plans similar to 401(k)s, and Social Security benefits. Additionally, those who retire before being eligible for Social Security benefits receive special supplements until they turn 62.
This supplement, however, is on the chopping block under the new House bill, with affected workers like Santa Maria losing their benefits starting January 1, 2028. “I was shocked,” she reflects. “I couldn’t believe they were actually considering this.”
Santa Maria, like many other federal employees, found her career upended following the Trump administration. She hadn’t intended to retire until 57, but the uncertainty surrounding job security led her to accept a voluntary separation incentive of $20,000 to leave at 53, just shy of her 35-year mark.
“Nobody was sure if their job was safe,” she explains. “I thought it was smarter to leave voluntarily rather than face being pushed out.”
Only after making the decision did she learn the proposed cuts that could significantly erode her retirement benefits, estimating a potential loss of around $110,000 over five years. “I truly don’t see why they would take these benefits away at this stage,” she adds.
Discussions in Congress had previously included substantial reductions in federal retirement benefits, even considering changing how retirement income is calculated. While some of these proposals have been retracted, others still threaten existing benefits.
Rachel Greszler, a researcher at the Conservative Heritage Foundation, has noted that federal retirement benefits seem excessively generous compared to those available to average Americans, praising the proposal to remove the special supplements as long overdue.
John Hutton from the National Association of Active and Retired Federal Employees estimates that tens of thousands of employees could be impacted by these cuts. “This could really affect a lot of people,” he comments, including those like Santa Maria facing layoff threats.
Hutton emphasizes the importance of these benefits as retention tools for federal workers. On the flip side, Greszler argues they might restrict individuals from pursuing better opportunities outside the government.
Santa Maria believes retaining knowledgeable civil servants is crucial, as their experience and expertise are essential for navigating the complex government systems. “You can’t just expect quality from people who have only been in the position a short time,” she asserts.
Santa Maria voted for Trump in the 2024 election, anticipating improvements in the efficiency and technology of the Social Security Agency. “But I see a pattern of layoffs and an outdated system,” she laments. With the future of her retirement now uncertain, she feels increasingly disillusioned.
She has even started a petition on change.org, urging lawmakers to honor the promises made to long-serving federal workers like herself. “Please don’t betray those who dedicated decades to this country,” she appeals in her petition.
