How does the Social Security Administration estimate the fiscal impact of unauthorized workers in its Trustees reports?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Social Security Administration (SSA) does not ignore unauthorized workers in its actuarial calculus; it estimates their fiscal impact by modifying assumptions and projection methods to account for their numbers, earnings, tax payments and likely benefit receipt, then folding those effects into the standard Trustees projection framework and long‑range actuarial balance over a 75‑year horizon (and in some analyses longer) [1] [2] [3]. The result, SSA reports, depends heavily on method choices: in past analyses unauthorized workers have on net slightly improved the program’s finances because many pay payroll taxes but are less likely to receive credited benefits, yet other methodological revisions and projections of illegal immigration can move the balance in the opposite direction [1] [4].
1. How the Trustees frame the question: projections under “current law” and the 75‑year baseline
The Board of Trustees produces annual Social Security projections under current law using a long‑range (75‑year) “intermediate” set of demographic and economic assumptions; those same projection mechanics are the framework into which any estimate of unauthorized worker impacts must be placed, so the effect is measured as a change in projected payroll‑tax income and benefit outlays over that horizon and in the actuarial balance metrics the Trustees use [2] [3].
2. What SSA says it can and cannot do: data limits and methodological updates
SSA explicitly acknowledges it must “estimate these amounts using the best available” information and that characteristics of the unauthorized population evolve, prompting methodological updates over time; the agency has revised its methods to better reflect work activity and potential benefit receipt by unauthorized immigrants and flags that estimates are inherently uncertain [1] [5].
3. The basic conceptual channels SSA examines: taxes in, benefits out
At a conceptual level the SSA analysis assesses two offsetting channels: unauthorized workers who generate payroll‑tax revenue when earnings are reported increase program income, while their lower likelihood of having fully credited earnings or of claiming benefits reduces projected outlays—SSA’s actuarial note concluded that, on average, the net effect has been a modest positive contribution to Social Security’s finances in the years studied [1].
4. How those channels are implemented in the Trustees machinery
While the Trustees report itself documents universe‑wide assumptions and projection tables, SSA’s actuarial notes and methodology pages describe that specific provisions or populations that affect taxable earnings or benefit entitlements are modeled via changes to covered employment, wage levels, and benefit‑crediting assumptions; these tailored adjustments are then propagated through the standard income‑and‑outlay projection models used in each annual report [5] [6].
5. Evidence that methodology matters: recent adjustments and their effects
Independent analysts and budget groups have pointed to exactly this sensitivity: the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget singled out revisions in how the Trustees project illegal immigration as one of the methodological changes that affected the actuarial balance in 2025, underscoring that different plausible approaches to counting and projecting unauthorized workers can materially change long‑range results [4].
6. What SSA’s published actuarial notes report as the finding
In an actuarial note SSA reported that because unauthorized workers are “less likely to be reported as taxable and even less likely to be credited for future benefit entitlement,” its projections nonetheless suggested a net positive effect on the financial status of the Social Security program for the year analyzed, reflecting the particular assumptions and methods used in that study [1].
7. Limits, transparency and political context
The Trustees system is transparent about assumptions and methodological changes and publishes supporting notes and reports, but it also makes clear that estimates of unauthorized‑worker impacts rest on imperfect data and important modeling choices; stakeholders can and do emphasize different results depending on which assumptions they favor, which creates space for contested interpretations in policy debates [5] [2].