Buried.News

The New Republic reports that a Social Security Administration inspector general audit was altered before publication in a way that made phone wait times look much shorter. The piece frames the change as Trump-aligned leadership turning an audit into messaging, but it leaves readers without the underlying documents (draft vs. final) and the methodological context for why different “wait time” metrics can diverge. It matters because if audit language and metrics can be sanitized, Congress and the public lose a key check on whether service cuts and staffing shifts are harming beneficiaries.

The New Republic says The Washington Post found that an SSA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report released in December 2025 was changed shortly before publication, based on document version history. The disputed change: an earlier draft reportedly included “total wait time” estimates (averaging 46 minutes to more than two hours in 2025), while the published version emphasized a much lower “average wait time” to speak to a representative (described as under 10 minutes). The published SSA OIG audit (dated December 2025) states SSA’s publicly reported 800-number metrics were accurate and that performance improved in FY 2025, attributing changes to a new telecom platform and staff realignments. Outside reporting on the same OIG audit notes that SSA’s “average speed of answer” can understate real time-to-help because callers who immediately request a callback may be counted as having zero wait time, even if the callback comes much later. SSA’s own December 22, 2025 press release highlighted “average wait time” falling from about 30 minutes (January 2025) to about 7 minutes (September 2025) and framed the findings as validating SSA’s reported metrics. The New Republic links the incident to broader concerns about inspector general independence under the Trump administration, including mass firings of inspectors general early in Trump’s second term; contemporaneous reporting in January 2025 described a “Friday night purge” of multiple IGs and raised legal/process concerns. The New Republic quotes Social Security Watch president Nancy Altman criticizing the episode as undermining independent oversight; this is an advocacy perspective rather than an adjudicated finding.