House measure would scrap the special FERS supplement, trimming thousands of dollars from longtime employees’ expected income.
For Michele Santa Maria, who spent 35 years guiding Social Security claimants through red tape, the promise of a full pension plus a bridge payment from 57 to 62 made the long days worthwhile. Now that bridge is cracking. A provision inside President Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” approved by the House last month, would eliminate the special retirement supplement for anyone younger than 57 on Jan. 1, 2028.
What the House bill would change for the federal retirement supplement benefit millions rely on
Under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), workers who log at least three decades of service can leave as early as 57 and receive:
| Current FERS “three‑legged stool” | Description |
|---|---|
| Defined‑benefit pension | Based on highest three consecutive years of pay |
| Thrift Savings Plan | 401(k)‑style account with agency match |
| Social Security | Standard national benefit at age eligibility |
| Special retirement supplement | Extra payment from 57–62 equal to projected Social Security |
The House plan strikes out that last line, saving an estimated $11 billion over 10 years but slashing roughly $22,000 a year from retirees like Santa Maria. “There’s no way they’ll do this to us,” she thought—until the vote tally said otherwise.
Why longtime Social Security employees insist the federal government must honor its promises
Workers who accepted voluntary early‑out offers during recent downsizing based their decisions on receiving the supplement. “Who wants to stay with outdated computers and heavy caseloads without that finish‑line reward?” Santa Maria asks. Advocates at the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association call the cut a “retroactive clawback,” likening it to an employer yanking vested 401(k) contributions after an employee resigns.
Conservative analysts, including the Heritage Foundation’s Rachel Greszler, counter that the supplement gives federal staff “Social Security years early,” a perk unknown in most private‑sector plans. They say trimming it brings government compensation closer to the national norm and could foster healthy turnover. Still, opponents warn that gutting benefits mid‑career will drive away institutional knowledge just when agencies need it most.
What happens next as the Senate weighs the controversial retirement benefit rollback
The Senate is expected to take up its version of the budget in coming weeks. Because Republicans hold a narrow majority and are using reconciliation, only 51 votes are needed for final passage. Supporters of the supplement are urging lawmakers to “grandfather” anyone already on the job before 2028. Will that plea gain traction, or will the savings prove too tempting? Thousands of federal families—and the services they provide—hang in the balance.
If the Senate concurs, employees retiring after 2027 could lose up to $110,000 over five years. Federal workers eyeing the exit should follow the debate closely, review personal savings goals, and contact their senators now.