Social Security implementing big change this fall. Here's how benefits will be affected
Starting Sept. 30, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will no longer issue paper checks for benefit payments in an effort to 'modernize payment systems and enhance service delivery,' the administration wrote in a statement.
Specifically, the SSA believes this change will enhance:
Speed and efficiency by using Electronic Funds Transfers (EFTs) which process more quickly than paper checks, helping beneficiaries receive their payments on time without delays
Cost savings, as issuing paper check costs about 50 cents. whereas an EFT costs less than 15 cents. This shift could save the federal government millions of dollars annually, the SSA reports.
Security, because paper checks are 16 times more likely to be lost or stolen compared to electronic payments, increasing the risk of fraud.
The transition primarily affects a small group of beneficiaries who have not switched to electronic payment methods already, which is less than 1%, the administration wrote. Notices are being sent out to these individuals to explain the upcoming change and highlight the benefits of switching to electronic payments.
Future benefit checks will also include an insert explaining the steps a beneficiary can take to transition to electronic payments.
People who currently receive paper checks have two options in how their Social Security payments can be made electronically:
Direct deposit, meaning that payments can be deposited directly into their checking or savings account
Direct Express Card, for people without a bank account who wish to have a prepaid debit card designed specifically for federal benefit payments.
'In extremely rare circumstances,' the U.S. Department of the Treasury will grant exceptions to the electronic payment mandate. Those who wish to do so, can fill out this waiver which can be printed out and mailed to the Treasury, whose address is on the form.
Further questions about this request can be made to the Treasury at 855-290-1545.
Beneficiaries can update their payment information through their online Social Security account. More details about the shift and how to enroll in these digital payment options can be found here. People can also call Social Security at 1-800-772-1213.
The latest from MassLive
A writer's satirical take on his journey from Colombia to 'The Late Show'
Teen caught with gun, man with drugs; Holyoke police arrest two
Coldplay's Chris Martin calls out awkward moment at Gillette Stadium show
Trump is checked for swelling in legs and was diagnosed with a common condition in older adults
5 remain hospitalized days after deadly fire at Fall River assisted living facility
Read the original article on MassLive.
Solve the daily Crossword
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US mulls limited authorizations for oil firms in Venezuela, sources say
By Marianna Parraga, Matt Spetalnick and Timothy Gardner HOUSTON/WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to grant new authorizations to key partners of Venezuela's state-run oil company PDVSA, starting with Chevron, which would allow them to operate with limitations in the sanctioned OPEC nation, four sources close to the matter said on Thursday. If granted, the authorizations to the U.S. oil major, and possibly also to PDVSA's European partners, would mark a policy shift from a pressure strategy Washington adopted earlier this year on Venezuela's energy industry, which has been under U.S. sanctions since 2019. A senior State Department official said in a statement they could not speak about any specific licenses to PDVSA's partners, but added the U.S. would not allow President Nicolas Maduro's government to profit from the sale of oil. The U.S. might now allow the energy companies to pay oilfield contractors and make necessary imports to secure operational continuity, two of the sources said. "Chevron conducts its business globally in compliance with laws and regulations applicable to its business, as well as the sanctions frameworks provided for by the U.S. government, including in Venezuela," a company spokesperson said. Though Venezuela and the U.S. conducted a prisoner swap this month, relations between the two countries have been tense for years, and the Trump administration has publicly supported opposition leaders who say their candidate won last year's election, not Maduro. Trump in February announced the cancellation of a handful of energy licenses in Venezuela, including Chevron's, and gave until late May to wind down all transactions. The U.S. State Department, which in May blocked a move by special presidential envoy Richard Grenell to extend the licenses, is this time imposing conditions to any authorization modifications, so no cash reaches Maduro's coffers, the two sources added. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio could still decide to ban the move at the last minute or modify the scope of the new authorizations. It was not immediately clear if the terms of the license that could be granted to Chevron would be reproduced for other foreign companies in Venezuela, including Italy's Eni and Spain Repsol, which have been asking the U.S. to allow them to swap fuel supplies for Venezuelan oil. The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Banks are carrying the risk of America's foreign policy
The Treasury Department wants banks to act like national security agencies. But the infrastructure isn't there, the guidance doesn't arrive fast enough and the priorities shift too quickly for institutions to keep up. In theory, a risk-based approach to anti-money laundering and sanctions enforcement is supposed to make compliance smarter. In practice, it's become a liability. Banks are being held responsible for foreign policy pivots they didn't cause, can't predict and are rarely equipped to manage. Take Syria. The sanctions shift in June caught everyone off guard. One day, hundreds of blacklisted entities were just gone — no heads-up, no pattern. And oddly, many also stayed sanctioned with no explanation. Inside banks, it wasn't clear what to do. Teams were yanking controls, second-guessing everything, hoping they weren't missing something that would blow back later. No safe harbor was granted. No transition period was offered. It wasn't guidance — it was whiplash. In May, the Trump administration secured $600 billion in Saudi investment pledges, arms agreements with Riyadh, and commercial pacts with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, jurisdictions with known financial crime vulnerabilities. The United Arab Emirates was only removed from international watch lists in 2024. Weeks later, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network designated three Mexican financial institutions as primary money laundering concerns under new fentanyl-related authorities, cutting off U.S. correspondent access without warning or transition. Institutions with exposure had to unwind positions and coordinate emergency legal reviews in hours. As policy swings between high-dollar engagement and abrupt enforcement, banks are expected to interpret shifting national priorities without reliable guidance, safe harbors or regulatory infrastructure. This pattern is now familiar: Foreign policy decisions are made quickly, implemented aggressively and left for the private sector to decode. And that decoding process isn't theoretical, it's budgeted, resourced and internalized by banks with finite headcount and finite patience. Meanwhile, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's beneficial ownership registry remains structurally hollow. As of March, U.S. companies are no longer required to report ownership data, leaving financial institutions without access to the very information they were promised. The database, once intended to illuminate shell structures and illicit ownership chains, is still cited in federal guidance but remains effectively unusable. With access restricted to a phased rollout and core data now absent, institutions are being held to standards they cannot operationalize. On the sanctions front, Russia enforcement has resulted in over 2,500 designations since 2022. These include banks, oligarchs, industrial sectors, shipping entities and digital asset infrastructure. The scale of enforcement has been unmatched, but typology guidance often lags weeks behind. General licenses arrive late. Enforcement FAQs change midstream. Risk modeling is updated in arrears, not in anticipation. In the United Kingdom, 82 percent of banks admitted to skipping basic verification checks on new customers, and 94 percent do not run daily screenings on existing clients, a worrying number given the rapid changes in sanctions. While these findings reflect U.K. institutions, they offer a stark warning: Even in highly regulated markets, the infrastructure banks rely on isn't scaling with enforcement expectations. In this environment, institutions are penalized not just for doing the wrong thing, but for failing to predict the next shift. They're expected to interpret national security posture in real time, while receiving no classified insight, no operational roadmap and no consistency in enforcement tone. The result? They preempt. They freeze accounts on speculation. They sever correspondent relationships on rumor. This isn't just frustrating, it's structurally unsound. Banks are now de-risking entire regions not because of active sanctions, but because of anticipated volatility. They're refusing transactions not because they're prohibited, but because they might become politically radioactive later. Compliance programs weren't built to carry this weight, and the government isn't helping them do it. Funding is flat. Tools are inconsistent. And regulators still expect real-time decisions in a system designed for after-the-fact review. The message to financial institutions is clear: Enforce foreign policy priorities. The infrastructure, stability and liability protections? Those are still pending. This isn't a partisan problem. It's a systemic one. Democratic and Republican administrations alike have made aggressive use of Treasury authorities to pursue foreign policy goals. But neither has addressed the operational burden left behind. Anti-money laundering compliance and sanctions enforcement have quietly become tools of statecraft, handed off to private institutions that cannot absorb the complexity, ambiguity and legal risk of that delegation. The result is a landscape defined by fragmentation, second-guessing and exposure. Institutions that get it right see no reward. Institutions that guess wrong face enforcement, reputational fallout, and program overhauls. Risk-based compliance only works when the risk is defined, the expectations are stable and the information flow is reciprocal. That's not what banks are getting today. They're being asked to manage not just compliance, but also geopolitical unpredictability. They are, functionally, the operational front line of an outsourced enforcement system. This is not sustainable, scalable or safe.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Musk expects ‘rough quarters' for Tesla
Tesla CEO Elon Musk suggested Wednesday that the electric vehicle company could face a 'rough' couple of quarters going forward. The EV firm's earnings dipped 16 percent in the second quarter of 2025, falling to just under $1.2 billion in the three-month period between April and June. During the same period last year, the company posted $1.4 billion in net income. 'We probably could have a few rough quarters,' Musk said on Tesla's earnings call. 'I'm not saying it will, but we could.' However, he appeared optimistic about where the company is headed next year, as it increasingly focuses on autonomy and robotics. While Tesla still produces electric cars, Musk has sought to shift the company toward autonomous vehicles, like Robotaxi, and humanoid robots, like Optimus. Tesla has faced a tumultuous year so far, largely due to Musk's involvement in politics. After supporting President Trump's campaign last year, the Tesla CEO took on a high-profile role in his administration, leading the controversial effort by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to slash government spending. The EV maker became a political symbol for Musk, attracting both peaceful and destructive demonstrations. The company's stock tumbled, and it posted a 71 percent drop in earnings in the first quarter. After Musk left the administration, Tesla investors appeared hopeful for more stability. However, he quickly became involved in a contentious public feud with Trump over his so-called 'big, beautiful bill.' While the Tesla CEO voiced concerns about the tax and spending bill's additions to the federal deficit, Trump accused Musk of being upset about the repeal of an EV tax credit, which is set to expire at the end of September. Musk and his fellow Tesla executives noted on Wednesday's call that the repeal of the EV credit is likely to impact the company. 'Given the abrupt change, we have limited supply of vehicles in the U.S. this quarter,' Vaibhav Taneja, Tesla's chief financial officer, said, adding, 'If you're in the U.S. and looking to buy a car, place an order now, as we may not be able to guarantee delivery orders placed in the later part of August and beyond.' Taneja said Tesla is currently focused on building and delivering as many vehicles as possible before the credit expires, a push that it likely to slow the company's efforts to ramp up production of a new lower cost vehicle. He also warned of lower revenues after Trump's bill eliminated emissions penalties that Tesla could sell to other carmakers.
