
America's Next War Begins at Home
Commentary
Suddenly, the lights go out. So does the heat. It's not a localized disruption—all of DC is down. So are New York, Denver, and parts of Hawaii and Texas. It lasts for hours, then days. It becomes clear this was intentional, a massive cyber-attack by China. Businesses can't function. Wall Street halts trading. Mass looting breaks out. Societal panic sets in.
While the scenario may sound extreme, the threat is very real. Many across the defense and national security community and pockets of private industry use shorthand to refer to it:
A catastrophic VT attack is still hypothetical, but its precursors are all too real. During Russia's three-year war in Ukraine, we've witnessed
As VT and similar destructive cyber operations have become increasingly central to our adversaries' theories of military victory against the United States, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)—in concert with civilian agencies—must take on a larger role to protect energy infrastructure here in the homeland.
Modern Warfare Pushes DoD into New Territory
The emerging challenge for DoD is stated clearly in a little-known August 2024
The DSB report makes several recommendations, including that the DoD stand up a permanent mission infrastructure resilience organization, which 'is structured and resourced to support long-term partnerships across key sectors in the interagency and with civilian infrastructure owners.' The report envisions this new permanent DoD entity would play a major role in mitigating the risks to DoD of an adversarial attack on civilian energy infrastructure (as well as transportation, communications, water, and other critical infrastructure) through ongoing analysis, intelligence and threat assessment, and gaming and exercises.
Related Stories
4/28/2025
4/28/2025
For those who have been watching the critical infrastructure security and resilience space for years, the idea of a major DoD role is somewhat novel. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have historically been the leaders in working with private industry to protect critical infrastructure from major cyber-attacks. These civilian agencies operate under established frameworks and authorities dating back more than a decade, and re-codified as recently as last year in the Biden administration's
DoD's attention in recent decades has been focused abroad: in fighting, supporting, or preparing for wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, the Taiwan strait, and other swaths of the Middle East and Africa. DoD activity in the homeland quickly bumps up against legal, jurisdiction, and precedential questions. The
However, now that attacks on homeland critical infrastructure are central to near-peer adversaries' war plans, it is only natural that DoD's interest would gravitate in that direction. Beyond the DSB report, several indicators point to potential focus from the Trump administration in a larger role for DoD in homeland security. Secretary of Defense Hegseth noted a focus on homeland defense in his first
The administration's focus on readiness for a potential conflict with China may also contribute to a growing DoD role on critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. Concepts like U.S. Army North's
Private Sector Enters the Fight
With all that said, DoD's ability to mitigate a VT scenario—just like that of DHS, CISA, and FBI—will run headlong into a decades-old fundamental constraint: the willingness and capability of individual utilities, oil, gas, renewables, and other energy companies to protect their infrastructure from national security threats on their own dime. There are certain regulatory security requirements for the energy sector, including the North American Reliability Corporation-Critical Infrastructure Protection (
Fortunately, some infrastructure owners and operators in the energy sector are leaning forward and choosing to work proactively with the U.S. government, including with the DoD, beyond what is required by regulation. Dominion Energy, a Fortune 500 energy company which is responsible for power across several states has welcomed a full-time Marine Corps detailee into their security operations center. The Marine Corps pays the officer's salary through a military fellowship program. The detailee learns the latest private sector methods of securing corporate networks and Dominion receives a highly qualified expert who can ensure tight coordination between Dominion's defensive cyber operations and those of the DoD. Adam Lee, vice president and chief security officer at Dominion, notes, 'It would be difficult to have a closer relationship with DoD on these issues than we have at Dominion.' However, Dominion is still the exception rather than the norm. Investment across the industry is uneven and there is a lack of standardization among companies on how to work with federal agencies.
Beyond infrastructure owners and operators, other parts of the energy sector are increasingly engaged in defense and national security issues like VT. Startups and growing companies that specialize in microgrids, small modular reactor nuclear technology, geothermal energy, and other energy resilience solutions have found a willing partner and funder in the DoD. Recently, DoD announced the
Speeding Up, Scaling Up
Ongoing efforts in both the government and private sector, therefore, are promising. A growing DoD role—if managed carefully in coordination with civilian agencies—could also be a force multiplier that injects resources and attention into a perennially thorny challenge. The question is whether planning efforts are moving at sufficient speed and scale to prevent or mitigate the worst of a VT scenario and ensure the United States maintains an advantage in any future war. To increase our readiness, key actions must be taken both by the government and the private sector.
The Trump administration should move rapidly to implement the recommendations in last year's DSB report, aligning these efforts with its
To incentivize private sector collaboration with DoD, DHS, and FBI, the administration should also develop a proposal for Congress to financially incentivize critical infrastructure companies to implement stronger security and engage more proactively with the federal government. A purely voluntary approach to these challenges has yielded limited results. Regulations have a place but often have the unintended consequence of forcing private sector companies into compliance-based rather than risk-based cultures and sapping them of the creativity we need to see on such challenging issues. Financial incentives, such as a tax credit for developing a corporate strategy to contribute to national security, would have a better chance of achieving the desired results.
Energy infrastructure owners, operators, and technology developers shouldn't wait for further signals from the government to lean forward. Proactive companies are already reaping the benefits: reduced risk to their assets, improved reputation, and in the case of some, free labor or new contracts with the DoD and other federal agencies. As the government's attention on critical infrastructure security continues to grow in coming years, the companies already engaged are likely to see significant cost savings and efficiencies, whether in the form of quicker compliance, fewer additional investments, or even government funding or incentives.
The path for energy companies who want to jump into this space is straightforward: invest, build, and engage. Invest in analytical capabilities to understand and monitor the national security, defense, and critical infrastructure protection issues likely to impact your business. Build a whole-of-business strategy that outlines corporate efforts to support U.S. national security objectives, including by protecting assets from VT-style attacks and being responsive to U.S. policy priorities. And engage proactively with the DoD, national security agencies, state and local governments, industry peers, the public, and the media on these critical issues.
Conclusion
The nature of warfare is changing. With it, we are seeing major shifts in U.S. defense priorities and the expectations of private sector critical infrastructure companies, especially in the energy sector. Luckily, many capable and driven individuals across the government and private sector are already working assiduously on preventing VT-style catastrophic scenarios. But more must be done. The fight is just getting started.
From
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
5 hours ago
- CBS News
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey discuss President Trump's "big beautiful bill", proposed tax and spending cuts
As the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate considers making changes to President Trump's "big, beautiful bill", Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas vowed, "We're going to get this done. We will get the one big, beautiful bill passed, and the reason we're going to is because we have to." Cruz made his comments to CBS News Texas Thursday during an interview for Eye On Politics. When asked what changes he would like to see made to the version of the bill passed by the U.S. House last month, Cruz said, "I'd like to see us cut more spending. I'll tell you one idea that I've been urging my colleagues to do, and an idea I urged the President in the Oval Office last week to do is to end the Federal Reserve's practice of paying interest rates on bank reserves. For most of the history of the Fed from 1913 until 2008, the Fed did not pay interest on reserves. Then it started paying interest on reserves fairly recently in 2008." A report by the Federal Reserve at the time said, "This policy gave banks an incentive to hold onto their reserves rather than lending them out, thus mitigating the need for the Federal Reserve to offset its expanded lending with reductions in other assets." But Cruz said it's too costly to taxpayers. "In the last couple of years of the Biden administration, that expenditure skyrocketed, and it's spending now over $150 billion. That is your and my taxpayer money that is going straight to big banks. Ending that practice, that one change alone, would save $1.1 trillion over the next ten years." Cruz said the U.S. could save another $2 trillion over a decade by cutting more federal spending. "For example, removing illegal aliens from federal government welfare benefits that saves hundreds of billions of dollars. Another is expanding work requirements to receive federal benefits. I think work requirements are incredibly helpful and beneficial for young, healthy people." He also said the Senate's version of the bill will include his legislation for no tax on tips, a federal tax credit that provides incentives for school choice programs, and a what's called Invest America, which provides $1,000 to newborn children that can be invested for them. Parents, family members, and employers can also give up to $5,000 a year in a tax advantage account. "By the time he or she turns 18, they'll have $170,000 in that account, and if they keep contributing $5,000 a year, by the time that child turns 35, he or she will have $700,000 in that account." House and Senate Republicans favor extending and making permanent the income tax cuts approved in 2017 during President Trump's first term. When asked about the Congressional Budget Office's projections that the "big, beautiful bill will add $2.4 trillion to the debt if passed as is, Cruz rejected it. "Historically, CBO has been wrong in its scoring. Over and over and over again, they underestimate the economic growth from tax cuts. But what I'll say secondly, is I agree. We need to cut more spending." All Democrats in the U.S. House, including Representative Marc Veasey of Fort Worth, voted against the "big, beautiful bill." When asked what he favors, Veasey told CBS News Texas, "I probably would include a much smaller tax cut. I certainly believe that when we have an opportunity to cut taxes that we should. I'm not one of these people that think that we ought to be sending out extra punishment just because someone's been successful. That's not what I'm all about. I think that entrepreneurism and people that are wealthy in this country have created a lot of jobs. I just think that people need to pay their fair share. Kicking people off of health care services so Elon (Musk) can have a tax break is not what I'm all about." The national debt has grown to nearly $37 trillion and asked whether spending cuts are necessary, Veasey said, "Spending absolutely has to be cut, but it needs to be done responsibly." The CBO also projected that under the bill passed by House Republicans last month, 7.8 million people will lose their medicaid coverage by 2034. Veasey said, "I'm not surprised. It's going to be detrimental, particularly to a state like Texas, where you hae such a high percentge of residents that really do rely on medicaid services. You're going to see mortality rates rise and you're going to see a lot of people that voted for Trump, they are literally going to see their health care coverage ripped right from up under them." Republicans in the House and Senate have said the spending on Medicaid has grown unsustainably, and that they want to preserve it for the people who it was originally designed for: pregnant women, the poor, and the disabled. Republicans favor strict work requirements. But Veasey discounted that. "There are a lot of nuances in that, that I don't think the Republicans are explaining to people on purpose. Someone that's pregnant would need to verify, probably more than once during the pregnancy that they're actually pregnant. That's the sort of thing that is going to end up through attrition kicking people off the rolls. What it's going to do is exacerbate poor health care outcomes because people won't go to the doctor anymore because they won't have a practitioner. They'll go and get all of their needs through the emergency room." Senate Republicans hope to pass the "big, beautiful bill" by July 4th. It will then go back to the House for consideration.


Los Angeles Times
6 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
The Trump immigration raids: Stunning, yet predictable
The threats weren't subtle. President Trump promised throughout his campaign that he would conduct the largest mass deportation in U.S. history. Migrants, he said, were 'poisoning the blood' of the country and 'getting them out will be a bloody story.' 'If I thought things were getting out of control,' the GOP candidate told Time magazine, 'I would have no problem using the military.' So it was perhaps inevitable, then, that after Trump was elected, the federal government was set for a historic showdown with the self-identified 'sanctuary city' of Los Angeles, the vast metropolis where 1 in 3 residents is an immigrant. L.A. County — home to 800,000 undocumented immigrants — has one of the nation's most robust immigration rights networks. And these community groups were hosting 'Know Your Rights' workshops, organizing patrols to alert residents of immigration sweeps and preparing, as much as they could, to resist. Both sides had been building toward this moment for years — a city famous for embracing the immigrant experience and a White House that had made hostility toward those here illegally a hallmark of its agenda. The upheaval last week on the streets of Los Angeles — immigration raids sweeping up workers and leaving communities in terror, scattered protests that at times turned violent, the deployment of National Guard and Marine troops over the objections of local leaders — has been both stunning but also, in retrospect, predictable. Trump and his lieutenants had been promising a clampdown, but many in Los Angeles were still staggered by it playing out so quickly and dramatically. And in a divided America, the perception of what actually happened depends on who you are. In Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass said Trump was adopting tactics that sow 'terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city.' She accused the president of upending the lives of hard-working people and their families, sending people underground and fanning the flames of protest by deploying troops. 'We will not stand for this,' Bass said on X. But Trump and his allies seized on the chaos, mocking the mayor as a small group of agitators set Waymo vehicles on fire and hurled rocks at law enforcement, while federal agents, and later local law enforcement, shot back with tear gas and flash-bang rounds. Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, retweeted the L.A. mayor's post, repeating her words as she shared photos on X of 'KILL ICE,' 'F— ICE' and an anarchy symbol scrawled on downtown federal buildings. 'We will not stand for THIS.' For months, officials had set the stage for mass deportations in White House media briefings, X posts and Fox News hits. In January, just a few hours after taking office, Trump signed a slew of executive orders aimed at dramatically curtailing U.S. immigration. Homeland Security issued a directive rescinding a Biden-era policy that protected such areas as churches and schools from immigration raids. The Trump administration also expanded its arrest targeting: It was not just those who posed a security threat but anyone in the country illegally. While ICE continued to say its priority was violent criminals, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt warned in January, 'that doesn't mean that the other illegal criminals who entered our nation's borders are off the table.' These weren't new ideas for Trump and his team, but his administration was embracing them with a new determination. Four months after Trump took office, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller held an emergency meeting with ICE's top field officials in Washington, D.C. Incensed by what he saw as the government's failure to fulfill its promise to arrest and deport immigrants in the country illegally, he 'eviscerated everyone,' according to one official who spoke to the Washington Examiner. 'You guys aren't doing a good job,' Miller said, according to the official. 'Why aren't you at Home Depot? Why aren't you at 7-Eleven?' In late May, Miller appeared on Fox News to announce publicly he was setting a goal of arresting 3,000 undocumented migrants a day. 'We can't take the risk of letting these Biden illegals roam around freely,' he told Sean Hannity. White House top border policy advisor Tom Homan told Fox News the next morning that officials planned to speed up arrests and increase teams in the field tenfold. This time, cities that barred municipal resources and personnel from being used for immigration enforcement — or sanctuary cities — would be targeted. 'We're going to send a whole boatload of agents,' Homan said on CBS News. 'We're going to swamp the city. If we can't arrest them in jail, we'll go out to the communities.' The next day, Trump posted an image of a fleet of airplanes lifting off from the tarmac. 'Let the deportations begin!' On June 7, Miller shared a video on X of a Customs and Border Protection agent, wearing a gas mask, trying to steer a vehicle away from an anti-ICE protest in Paramount as protesters smashed it with rocks. 'This is a violent insurrection,' Miller said. The word choice was ominous. The nation's military cannot legally make arrests within the U.S. unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act — a step Trump had previously threatened but stopped short of taking. As the unrest persisted, Trump administration officials' rhetoric became increasingly stark. Trump portrayed the city as a 'trash heap.' The Department of Homeland Security put out a news release stating it had captured the 'worst of the worst Illegal Alien Criminals in Los Angeles.' (The White House would later clarify that two-thirds of those arrested by ICE over the last week had no criminal records.) Even as Trump officials focused their public narrative on violent, undocumented offenders, they made clear that anyone who had entered illegally had broken the law and is subject to deportation. Anyone who identified with a foreign country was deemed suspicious. 'Look at all the foreign flags,' Miller said on X as he shared a video of a crowd of protesters, some waving Mexican flags. 'Los Angeles is occupied territory.' And just as they blurred boundaries between law-abiding immigrants and those with criminal histories, they cast all protesters as criminals, rioters and insurrectionists. 'Deport the invaders, or surrender to insurrection,' Miller said as the administration deployed National Guard troops to the city. Trump vowed to restore order. 'The Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free,' he said in a Truth Social post. Soon, he would mobilize a convoy of Marines to join the National Guard — both deployed against the will of local officials. Such an action hadn't been taken in more than half a century. California Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a federal lawsuit against Trump, calling his mobilization of the state's National Guard a 'brazen abuse of power.' Critics of the immigration crackdown in Los Angeles and subsequent military deployment called it 'a public relations operation' that was directed only at those who already support Trump. 'It provides sort of cheap fuel to keep his base,' said Efrén Pérez, professor of political science and psychology at UCLA. 'Angelenos, he said, 'are the quintessential persona non grata for Trump and his followers.' On June 9 — the day Homeland Security announced 700 active-duty Marines were headed to L.A. — Trump issued an extraordinary statement. 'The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others,' Trump said on Truth Social. 'These Patriots are told to accept this, it's just the way life runs. But not in the Trump Administration. IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT.' The continued clashes, amplified by sparring on X between Trump and California officials, left many Angelenos angered, frightened and confused. 'We do not know where and when the next raids in the city will be,' Bass told CNN: 'That is the concern, because people in the city have a Rapid Response Network: if they see ICE they go out, they protest. It's just a recipe for pandemonium that is completely unnecessary.' Although U.S. Northern Command reiterated that the federal troops in L.A. could not make arrests, Trump's previous threats — combined with the departure from usual practice — made many anxious. 'What is their mission? What are they doing?' Shawn Parry-Giles, the director of the Rosenker Center for Political Communication and Civic Leadership at the University of Maryland, said of the federal troops. 'It just seems chaotic all the way around, and the Trump administration is not doing a lot to alleviate that sense of chaos.' Gregory P. Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said Trump's fostering of chaos was no accident. 'I think that in a political, tactical sense, the uncertainty serves Trump's interest,' he said. 'I think there are people in the administration who know, 'OK, if we really invoke the Insurrection Act that risks a different level of public backlash and disapproval.' But if it's just 'OK, I've sent in the troops, and who knows what I'm going to do with them,' I think that sort of measure of chaos serves the kind of political theater that the president is engaging.' Homan dismissed any idea that the Trump administration's policy was unclear or that immigration raids had sowed confusion among Angelenos. 'They shouldn't be confused,' he told The Times. 'We said from day one we're going to run the biggest deportation operation this country has seen. We will concentrate on public safety threats and national security threats, but everything I've ever said is that collateral arrests will be made.' As the rhetorical skirmishes and pile-ons continued, it became clearer that the deep-seated differences among local, state and federal officials left few paths for a resolution. Trump officials were set on mass deportations, claiming they had a public mandate after their election victory. Meanwhile, Los Angeles officials were set on resisting any cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, even if it focused on criminal offenders. On June 9, Bass called the very presence of ICE agents in the city a provocation: 'If immigration raids had not happened here, we would not have the disorder that went on.' 'Newsflash, Karen: There are immigration raids happening because Joe Biden allowed illegal alien criminals into Los Angeles, and you have dangerous sanctuary city policies that protect them,' Leavitt said on X. 'Since you and Governor Newsom refuse to maintain law and order — President Trump will.' But even as Newsom trolled Trump officials on X, he showed some signs of a possible middle ground. In a Thursday interview with the New York Times' 'The Daily' podcast, Newsom expressed 'deep empathy' for immigrants who had been living in California for decades and were contributing to society. But he also appeared to distance himself from L.A. County's approach of refusing to coordinate with federal immigration officials in any way. 'Get rid of the criminals, I have no problem with that,' he said. 'But do it civilly and do it responsibly.' Later, Newsom celebrated what appeared to be Trump backing off from some immigration enforcement efforts that targeted agriculture and hotel workers after industry leaders pushed back. 'MAJOR WIN: Trump just reversed course on immigration,' Newsom said on Instagram. 'This happened because you spoke up. Keep it going. Keep it peaceful. It's working.' But as thousands of demonstrators poured into Los Angeles on Saturday to protest Trump administration policies, federal officials remained steadfast that they will continue. 'All Governor Newsom has accomplished with his vile political attacks on ICE officers,' Miller said on X, 'is to increase their determination to uphold immigration law in the city of Los Angeles.' Times staff writer Andrea Castillo contributed to this report.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
An Aggressive Social Security Garnishment Is Underway for Over 1,000,000 Beneficiaries -- Here's How You Can Legally Avoid It
Between 80% and 90% of retirees count on their Social Security income, in some capacity, to cover their expenses. The Trump administration has ended the Joe Biden-era overpayment and recovery rate of 10% and implemented a monthly clawback rate of 50% on Social Security overpayments. Beneficiaries who've received an overpayment letter from the Social Security Administration have multiple options available that can waive or reduce the amount they'll need to repay. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › In May, nearly 53 million retired workers brought home a Social Security check, with the average payout making history by cresting $2,000 for the first time ever. Though this is a relatively modest amount of monthly income, it's imperative to the financial well-being of most aging Americans. For more than 20 years, national survey-taker Gallup has polled retirees annually to gauge their reliance on Social Security income. Without fail, 80% to 90% of retirees have consistently responded that their monthly check was a necessity, in some capacity, to make ends meet. For beneficiaries, nothing is more important than knowing how much they're going to receive each month and having their payout keep pace with the inflationary pressures they're contending with on a year-to-year basis. But based on a new policy recently implemented under President Donald Trump, more than 1 million beneficiaries can expect their Social Security checks to shrink by up to 50%. With so many beneficiaries reliant on Social Security income to cover their expenses, this is income some can't afford to lose. Since Trump took office for his nonconsecutive second term, he's overseen a number of critical changes to America's leading retirement program. This includes beefing up personal identification methods, signing an executive order to eliminate paper Social Security checks, and creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which encouraged the Social Security Administration (SSA) to slash 7,000 jobs and shutter some of its locations to reduce its administrative expenses. But what's making headlines above all else are the two Social Security garnishments that the Trump administration has improved. For instance, by "sometime this summer," a 15% monthly garnishment is expected to be reinstated for the roughly 452,000 delinquent federal student loan borrowers who are currently receiving a Social Security benefit. Federal student loan payments ceased in March 2020 during the height of the pandemic and haven't recommenced. Between 2017 and 2023, the number of federal student loan borrowers aged 62 and above surged by 59% to roughly 2.7 million, based on data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But a 15% monthly garnishment is peanuts compared to the 50% garnishment rate that's currently underway for beneficiaries who were overpaid. Keep in mind that "beneficiaries" encompass retired workers, survivors of deceased workers, and workers with disabilities. Under the Joe Biden administration, Social Security clawbacks for overpayments were reduced to 10% per check, which is down from the 100% clawback rate that existed when President Barack Obama was in office, as well as during Donald Trump's first term. Based on statements from then-acting SSA Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi in 2023, the agency overpaid more than 1 million beneficiaries in fiscal 2022 (the federal government's fiscal year ends on Sept. 30) and over 980,000 recipients in fiscal 2023. With the garnishment rate slashed to just 10% under President Biden and having no new overpayment data published since fiscal 2023, it's likely safe to assume that more than 1,000,000 beneficiaries are still making good on their overpayments. Social Security overpayments can occur for a number of reasons. Sometimes, these errors are entirely the fault of the SSA and result in beneficiaries receiving too much per month. But they can also be caused by a recipient not updating their income. For example, non-blind workers with disabilities can earn up to $1,620 per month in wages and salary without having their long-term Social Security disability benefit stopped in 2025. If a worker with disabilities began collecting $3,000 in monthly income and didn't report this income change to the SSA, their federal tax filing would show they received Social Security disability benefits they weren't due, thusly resulting in an eventual clawback from the SSA. For the more than 1,000,000 beneficiaries who've received a letter from the SSA informing them they've been overpaid, there are options. The most desirable of these options is to request and be approved for an overpayment waiver (Form SSA-632BK, "Request for Waiver of Overpayment Recovery"). If the overpayment wasn't your fault and repaying the added benefits you received would lead to financial hardship -- you'll often need to supply documentation of your income and qualified expenses -- there's the possibility that the SSA will grant your request and waive your need to refund the overpayment. Along these same lines, beneficiaries can also file Form SSA-561, which is officially known as a "Request for Reconsideration." This route is taken by beneficiaries who don't agree with the SSA's decision that they've been overpaid and essentially want to appeal, as well as those who admit they've been overpaid but don't agree with the amount presented by the SSA. If your appeal is granted, you won't have to refund a dime to America's leading retirement program. Your appeal may also reduce how much you'll have to repay. The third option available to beneficiaries who've received a notice informing them of eventual clawbacks due to overpayment is to negotiate a different payment rate. Going this route is an admission that you've been overpaid but that removing 50% from your check on a monthly basis would create a financial hardship. Filing Form SSA-634 ("Request for Change in Overpayment Recovery Rate") with the SSA requires you to explain your financial situation, which includes documentation of your income and qualified expenses. Though the SSA typically aims to recover an overpayment within 12 months, some payment plans extend payments up to 60 months (five years) out. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. An Aggressive Social Security Garnishment Is Underway for Over 1,000,000 Beneficiaries -- Here's How You Can Legally Avoid It was originally published by The Motley Fool 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