Personal finance expert Suze Orman is advising Americans against claiming Social Security benefits at age 62, labeling the strategy as bad advice despite growing concerns over the program's solvency. Orman argues that claiming early permanently reduces monthly payouts and results in lower lifetime income compared to waiting until full retirement age. Her recommendation counters recent social media trends suggesting early collection to avoid potential future benefit cuts.

Social Security allows individuals to begin claiming benefits at age 62, but doing so reduces the monthly amount. For those born in 1960 or later, the full retirement age is 67. Orman noted that claiming at 62 locks in a benefit of only 70% of the full amount, creating a 30% reduction for life. She stated that the strongest strategy for most people, particularly higher earners in married households, is to wait until age 70 to maximize survivor benefits.

Solvency Concerns and Projected Cuts

Orman’s warning follows a report from the Social Security Board of Trustees indicating the retirement trust fund is projected to exhaust its reserves in 2032. Without legislative action, payroll tax revenue would cover only 78% of scheduled benefits after that date, implying an automatic benefit cut of roughly 22%. A separate analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated beneficiaries could see average monthly checks reduced by about $500.

Retirement anxiety is increasing broadly. A BlackRock survey found 76% of workplace savers believe their generation will have less retirement security than their parents, up from 67% in 2021.

Financial Comparison of Claiming Ages

Orman provided a mathematical example to illustrate the advantage of waiting. A retiree eligible for $2,000 per month at age 67 would receive only $1,400 per month if claiming at 62. Even if benefits were cut by 20% in the future, the individual who waited until 67 would receive about $1,600 per month, compared to roughly $1,260 for the early claimer.

Orman acknowledged that early claiming may be appropriate for individuals with serious health issues or those unable to work or draw from savings. However, she emphasized that fear-driven decisions based on solvency projections often backfire financially.

The Trump administration has formally requested the Supreme Court to authorize mandatory immigration detention without bond hearings, a policy that applies to some noncitizens who have resided in the United States for years. This legal challenge targets a May ruling by a 2-to-1 panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that the administration's interpretation of the law was incorrect. The request highlights a significant division in the federal judiciary, as two other appeals courts have upheld the policy while three have struck it down, resulting in thousands of active lawsuits across the country.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to address what he described as a "critically important question of immigration law." The filing arrives shortly after the Supreme Court's conservative 6-3 majority granted the administration two victories on Thursday, allowing the removal of protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants. The administration's current petition seeks a definitive ruling to unify conflicting lower court decisions.

The specific cases reviewed by the 6th Circuit involved citizens of Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Guatemala who had lived in the U.S. for extended periods prior to their arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection. The appellate court ruled that the administration had misread the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Furthermore, the court concluded that mandatory detention without bond hearings violated the detainees' due process rights as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

At the heart of the dispute is a 2024 decision by the Department of Homeland Security. This decision reclassified noncitizens who were already living within the United States as "applicants for admission," a category previously reserved primarily for those arriving at the border. This reclassification subjected these long-term residents to mandatory detention, thereby eliminating their eligibility for bond hearings. The Supreme Court's decision on this matter will have profound implications for the due process rights of noncitizens and the future of immigration enforcement policy.