That's not from UK self-employment. It's my recent voluntary class 2 contribution when living and being self-employed in the US.

Yeah, my voluntary class 2 contributions also show as 'Contributions from Self employment' which sounds like it's 'from work' and therefore would be subject to WEP, though like you said it probably shouldn't count.

I also have some years of automatic credits from late 70's/early 80's for higher education. Those are shown as full year credits but not attributable to work (ill/disabled/unemployed etc, but no mention of higher education which is what it really was). If you have those, they should not count toward WEP I assume.

By luck by mid-February I should have filled enough 'substantial earnings' for my 30th year of SS, so it's all moot for me at that time. Years ago I wasn't originally concerned much about WEP because I assumed my UK state pension would be trivial, but recently I made a bunch of voluntary back payments to bring my total up to 32 years, then realized I needed to work till 2025 to be clear of the WEP zone. Luckily that's right at my target retirement date.

Then it should be in your SS record. What does your SS record statement say for those years? On my SS statement I have an entry for every year I paid into SS. Don’t you have to pay into SS when you are self employed?

Voluntary contributions are classified as “Self-employed” on your statement but nevertheless they are WEP free. They work it out when initially calculating the WEP deduction using Form 308. So long as you identify which years were voluntary in Section 5 of that form, they will check with the UK and exclude the part of your pension attributable to those years from WEP.

In any case the WEP elimination bill will be voted upon in the Senate this upcoming week, so it could all be a pointless discussion. Let’s hope so.

Hearing it didn’t make it to the vote yesterday.
Might be Wednesday or Thursday…

Found this:

Here is an AI summary of Mike Crapo's proposed amendment to our bill:

"This amendment (SA 333) submitted by Senator Crapo to H.R. 82 essentially ties the implementation of the repeal of the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) to a fiscal requirement. Here's a breakdown of what it means:

KEY SECTIONS OF THE AMENDMENT:

1. Strike Section 4 and Insert a New Section 4: Effective Date
The new effective date for the repeal of GPO and WEP depends on meeting a specific condition.

THE NEW REQUIREMENTS:

(A) GENERAL EFFECTIVE DATE

• The amendments (repeal of GPO and WEP) will not take effect until a specific fiscal condition is satisfied.

• Once the condition is met, the changes will apply to monthly Social Security benefits going forward.

(B) REQUIREMENT TO OFFSET THE REPEAL'S FISCAL IMPACT

1. Condition to Offset Costs:The repeal of GPO and WEP can only proceed if offsetting measures are enacted to ensure there are no "negative impacts" on the actuarial balance of the Social Security Trust Funds (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance funds).
In simpler terms, Congress must pass additional laws or reforms that fully pay for the cost of repealing these provisions.


2. Determination of Meeting the Condition:The Board of Trustees of the Social Security Trust Funds will officially determine when the condition (full fiscal offset) has been met.
Until that happens, the repeal will not take effect.


(C) ADJUSTMENT OF BENEFITS (RECOMPUTATION)

• After the WEP repeal takes effect, the Social Security Commissioner will adjust the primary insurance amounts (benefits) to reflect the repeal.

• This recomputation ensures fairness for those affected by WEP in the past.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN PRACTICE?

• The amendment delays the repeal of GPO and WEP until Congress identifies and passes a way to pay for it, ensuring no harm to the financial health of the Social Security system.

• Essentially, it adds a fiscal responsibility clause: Congress cannot enact the repeal without addressing its cost impact on Social Security's solvency.

This makes the repeal contingent on offsetting the projected $195 billion cost (estimated over 10 years) to avoid worsening the financial stability of Social Security."

For once someone with a bit of common sense.

Just found this.

National Fraternal Order of Police President Patrick Yoes and Executive Director Jim Pasco just concluded a meeting with President-Elect Donald J. Trump at Mar-a-Lago to ask for his help in the bipartisan effort to pass of H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act.

During the meeting, President-Elect Trump expressed his commitment to helping pass this critical legislation, which will ensure public employees receive the benefits they have earned—just like every other American.

"You have been fighting for this for many years, and I know how important it is to you. You and your members have been good to me, and I am going to help you with this," President-Elect Trump stated.

The House of Representatives passed this bill with overwhelming bipartisan support. The U.S. Senate will consider the bill this week.

The Fraternal Order of Police will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of our members to see this effort through. It is time to stop the Steal!

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate approved a procedure Wednesday that sets a final vote before the end of the week to remove restrictions that eliminate or limit Social Security benefits for teachers, police, firefighters and other public workers who paid into the system.

The Senate action Wednesday foreclosed the possibility of a filibuster, ended debate and required the full Senate to proceed to a vote on Thursday night or Friday.

Sixty senators in the upper chamber were required to agree to invoke cloture. The Senate approved cloture for the Social Security Fairness Act on a 73 to 27 vote, which is a good indication that the Social Security Fairness Act ultimately will pass.

Both Louisiana's senators, Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, and John N. Kennedy, R-Madisonville, voted in favor of invoking cloture.

Wow!

I thought the whole point is that they haven't paid into the system? The opted out of SS because they had other provisions and as public workers they were allowed to opt for those instead of SS.
For expats of course it's unfair but my understanding of the whole rationale for WEP in the first place is that some civil servants were double dipping.

CALENDAR OF BUSINESS Thursday, December 19, 2024 (LEGISLATIVE DAY, DECEMBER 16, 2024) SENATE CONVENES AT 10:00 A.M. (IN RECESS) UNFINISHED BUSINESS MOTION TO PROCEED TO H.R. 82 (ORDER NO. 693) An act to amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. (Dec. 18, 2024.) (UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENTS ON P. 2) PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF SONCERIA ANN BERRY, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE By JOHN J. MERLINO, LEGISLATIVE CLERK www.SenateCalendar.gov 2 UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENTS H.R. 82 (ORDER NO. 693) 1.—Ordered, That with respect to the motion to proceed to H.R. 82, an Act to amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions, all time during adjournment, recess, Morning Business, Leader remarks, and consideration of the House message to accompany S. 4367 count post-cloture on the motion to proceed. (December 18, 2024.)

Unfair to people like us, for sure.
But some people did pay into SS and a private pension.
I have a buddy who worked a normal jobs from High school until he was 26, paying his SS taxes… Then he became a cop, did that for 12 years until he was injured in an unrelated motorcycle accident. He then went back into the private sector.
He just retired at 67, and has 35+ years of substantial income contributions paid into SS, but those 12 years of police pension take $587/month off his SS.
Thats not fair either.
Hard work and paying into both systems should not be penalized unequally.

That doesn’t sound right. After 20 years of substantial income contributions paid into SS the amount of WEP starts being reduced and after 30 years of contributions WEP reduction is zero, so if he paid into SS for 35 years WEP would not affect him at all.

Likely a GPO deduction rather than WEP. The GPO rules are different from WEP. The 20+ years of substantial earnings does not GPO reduce deductions. The bill will eliminate GPO as well as WEP.