Republicans Demand Answers on Ouster of Social Security Commissioner

A group of Republican lawmakers on Tuesday condemned President Biden’s ouster earlier this summer of Social Security Commissioner Andrew Saul and demanded information on how his acting successor may be constrained by the Vacancies Act.

In July, Biden fired Saul from the leadership of the Social Security Administration after he refused to resign, ending months of lobbying by progressive advocacy groups and the agency’s federal employee unions. Biden also asked for—and received—the resignation of Deputy Commissioner David Black. In Saul’s place, Biden appointed Kilolo Kijakazi, the agency’s deputy commissioner for retirement and disability policy, as acting commissioner.

In a letter to Comptroller General Gene Dodaro on Tuesday, Sens. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Todd Young, R-Ind., Tim Scott, R-S.C., and Reps. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, and Tom Reed, R-N.Y., called the ouster of Saul “unlawful” in light of the law governing the agency barring the president from removing the commissioner without cause.

“Unfortunately, the president chose to politicize an agency that administers benefits to roughly 70 million Americans from across the political spectrum,” they wrote. “Politicizing the agency is especially concerning given that doing so violates the letter and spirit of the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994.”

But shortly before Biden fired Saul, the Supreme Court appeared to open the door for the president to take the steps that he did. In a 6-3 ruling in Collins v. Yellen, the court found that the law providing a similar “for cause” protection to the Federal Housing Finance Agency director unconstitutionally constrained the president’s ability to oversee political appointees. Following that decision, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel published a 17-page legal opinion finding that the decision also applies to the Social Security Administration.

The lawmakers cited the bipartisan nature in which Saul was confirmed—by a vote of 77-16—and his performance managing the agency during the pandemic. But in recent months, Democratic calls for his ouster grew over his pugilistic approach to federal employee unions and efforts to make it hard to receive or continue to receive disability benefits.

“Commissioner Saul, given his management expertise, was remarkably successful in managing service delivery to beneficiaries during the biggest management challenge SSA has faced,” the GOP lawmakers wrote. “Now, as SSA must ensure beneficiary service as we face a choppy road of recovery from the pandemic, Social Security employees and beneficiaries have been thrown into an unfortunate state of uncertainty and discontinuity driven by politics.”

But over the course of the pandemic, the Social Security Administration has become a lightning rod for criticism, with some Republicans calling for the agency to recall employees to field offices over delays related to applicants’ need to provide original copies of identification documents to qualify for benefits. And last month, the agency’s inspector general reported that offices were “overwhelmed” by an avalanche of unprocessed mail, including thousands of Americans’ identification documents, because the agency did not develop a way to measure the flow of mail at its offices and adjust management staffing to handle the influx.

The GOP lawmakers sought confirmation that Kijakazi is qualified to serve as acting commissioner in accordance with the Vacancies Act, as well as the official date upon which she assumed control of the agency for the purposes of determining when her 210-day acting tenure will expire. They also asked for clarification on how her powers may be constrained due to her status as an acting official.

“Please define what are, and are not, nondelegable duties of the commissioner of the Social Security Administration,” they wrote. “Who has the authority to delegate duties upon the commissioner’s departure? . . . What ‘functions and duties,’ if carried out by an acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, constitute violations of the Vacancies Act?”