Seniors won't complain if they miss a Social Security check, Lutnick says
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
The Arthur J. Altmeyer Social Security Administration building at the agency's headquarters in Woodlawn, Md. Photo: Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested this week that only "fraudsters" would complain about missing a monthly Social Security check, and that most people wouldn't mind if the government simply skipped a payment.
Why it matters: More than 70 million Americans get a Social Security benefit every month, and for many, those checks are their only income.
The big picture: For generations, Social Security was called "the third rail of American politics" — many talked of reform, but in the end no one really touched the system.
- That changed this week.
What they're saying: "Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law, who's 94, she wouldn't call and complain," Lutnick — a billionaire former Wall Street CEO — told the billionaire "All In" podcast host Chamath Palihapitiya.
- "She just wouldn't. She'd think something got messed up, and she'll get it next month. A fraudster always makes the loudest noise, screaming, yelling and complaining,"
By the numbers: By the Social Security Administration's own estimates, of all beneficiaries over age 65, some 12% of men and 15% of women get at least 90% of their monthly income from Social Security.
The response: A Commerce Department spokesperson tells Axios: "The Secretary is committed to protecting Social Security for all eligible Americans."
The intrigue: As Lutnick's podcast remarks were drawing angry responses, a judge was expressing her own frustration Friday with the acting head of the agency, Lee Dudek.
- He was chastised by Maryland District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander over his reported threats to shut down the agency, following a temporary restraining order she had issued the previous day.
- The order restricted DOGE's access to Social Security's sensitive data. Dudek reportedly claimed the order left him no choice but to cut IT access for almost all his employees, which she said was "incorrect."
Catch up quick: The drama over Lutnick's comments and the judge's rebuke caps a long week for the agency.
- On Tuesday, Dudek announced changes to phone service that some former officials and current employees say could slow the benefits process for vulnerable people, and potentially cripple the system.
Zoom out: "Constantly having Social Security Administration in the news with with some, some, something or another, is creating a lot of confusion, a lot of chaos, a lot of real fear with our members," Bill Sweeney, vice president for government affairs at AARP, told Axios earlier this week.
The other side: The agency has said that its changes are meant to stop fraud in the system.
- That's what Lutnick seemed to be getting at: *Anybody who's been in the payment system, in the process system, knows the easiest way to find the fraudster is to stop payments and listen, because whoever screams is the one stealing. ... 80-year-olds, 90-years-olds, they trust the government, they trust, ok, maybe it got screwed up, big deal, they're not going to call and scream at someone — but someone who's stealing always does."
Reality check: Seniors and other benefit recipients frequently lodge complaints about Social Security with both the agency itself, and their local member of Congress.
- "Almost every member of Congress has a staff person whose job is almost fully dedicated to helping their constituents with problems at the Social Security Administration," AARP's Sweeney told Axios.
- In recent years, the complaints have increased, as the agency faced a five-year staffing low. Planned DOGE-driven staff and office cuts could make that worse.
- "For almost 90 years, Social Security has never missed a paycheck — but 60 days into this administration, Social Security is now on the brink," Lee Saunders, president of the union AFSCME, said in a statement Friday.
Editor's note: This version updates with Secretary Lutnick's response.
