(NewsNation) — Millions of Americans could see their Social Security benefits slashed in roughly a decade if Congress doesn’t act, and the next president could play an important role in shaping that agenda.
Polling shows voters are overwhelmingly against cutting benefits to fix the program. Nearly 80% of Americans, including 77% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats, say Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way, according to Pew Research.
Despite the bipartisan consensus, both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have avoided specifics on the campaign trail, each vowing to protect Social Security but offering few details on how they plan to fix the program.
The last major Social Security overhaul came in 1983 when the program was just months away from being unable to pay full benefits.
Any significant reforms would need to go through Congress, but a Harris or Trump presidency could set the tone for the future of Social Security.
“The president cannot do anything on his or her own, but the president has a powerful bully pulpit that can prompt Congress to take action,” said Rich Johnson, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.
A decade may feel like a long time to find a solution, but Johnson said the problem becomes more complicated the longer lawmakers wait.
Here’s where Harris and Trump stand on Social Security.
What has Donald Trump said about Social Security?
Trump has promised to “protect” and “save” Social Security, saying he won’t cut benefits or raise the retirement age. However, he hasn’t offered specifics on how he intends to shore up the program long-term.
Won’t cut Social Security or raise the retirement age
Trump has repeatedly said he will “not cut one cent” from Social Security, and his campaign website says there will be “no changes to the retirement age.”
It’s less clear how he plans to fix the program, which likely requires raising taxes, slashing benefits or some combination of the two.
In a December town hall, Trump suggested bolstering Social Security by tapping into the “incredible wealth under our feet” in the form of oil and gas.
An analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) found that allocating all oil and gas leasing revenues to Social Security would cover just 4% of the projected shortfall.
In a 2023 video addressing Social Security, Trump said he intends to “cut waste, fraud, and abuse everywhere that we can find it” but won’t slash retirees’ benefits. Instead, he said he would “cut the mass releases of illegal aliens that are depleting our social safety net” and axe “the billions being spent on climate extremism.”
Trump’s promise to hold the retirement age steady is at odds with the Republican Study Committee’s recent budget proposal, which suggested raising the age for those who are not near retirement “to account for increases in life expectancy.”
The official Republican Party Platform adopted at the Republican National Convention echoed Trump’s call for no cuts and no changes to the retirement age. The GOP platform said Republicans will ensure Social Security remains solvent by “reversing harmful Democrat policies” and “unleashing a new Economic Boom.”
NewsNation reached out to the Trump campaign for additional details regarding his Social Security plan but did not receive a response.
Ending federal income taxes on Social Security
Trump has called for an end to taxing Social Security benefits.
“Seniors should not pay taxes on Social Security, and they won’t,” Trump said at a recent rally in Pennsylvania, an idea he’s also floated on Truth Social.
Under current law, individuals who earn above $25,000 pay income tax on up to 50% of their Social Security retirement benefits. For seniors who earn above $34,000, an additional 35% of benefits are taxable. Nine states also collect taxes on Social Security.
Today, about 40% of Social Security recipients pay federal income taxes on their benefits, according to the Social Security Administration. That share has risen from 26% in 1998 because the exemption thresholds don’t go up with inflation, an example of so-called “bracket creep.”
If passed, Trump’s Social Security tax exemption could be a boon for retirees, but policy experts warn it would hurt the program in the long run.
“If you were to eliminate those sources of funds, it would decrease the time in which the Social Security trust funds would run out,” Johnson said.
Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, called the idea “unsound and fiscally irresponsible” in a blog post. He estimated the proposal would reduce tax revenue by about $1.4 trillion from 2025 to 2034, burning through Social Security reserves even faster and moving up the insolvency date by as much as two years.
What has Kamala Harris said about Social Security?
Harris has vowed to “protect” and “strengthen” Social Security but hasn’t provided details about her position. The Harris campaign did not respond to an email from NewsNation when asked about her Social Security plan.
As a senator, Harris co-sponsored the Social Security Expansion Act, which would have increased benefits for some and changed how annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) are calculated. It also would have extended the Social Security payroll tax to incomes over $250,000 a year.
Here’s what could happen, given what Harris has supported so far.
Extending payroll tax to the wealthy
The Biden-Harris administration has said it opposes any proposal to cut benefits or privatize Social Security. Instead, the White House wants to address the solvency issue by asking “the highest-income Americans to pay their fair share.”
If Harris continues that approach as president, she’ll likely push to expand the payroll tax to include higher incomes.
Currently, the primary source of income for Social Security is a payroll tax, which is capped at $168,600 for 2024 — any income above that isn’t subject to the tax. The legislation Harris co-sponsored in 2019 would have applied the tax to incomes above $250,000. Biden’s plan called for the tax to apply on income above $400,000.
Polling suggests eliminating the tax cap is broadly popular, with 79% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats in favor of the $400,000 proposal, according to a 2022 survey.
“I do think [Social Security] is a winning issue for the Democrats. It has been historically,” said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, a progressive advocacy group in favor of expanding the system.
Critics of the plan, like Brian Riedl at the conservative Manhattan Institute, argue that uncapping the payroll tax would only close half of the long-term shortfall while dramatically raising taxes on the upper middle class.
Another concern is that tweaking the payroll tax would uncap the benefits that high earners could earn. To solve that, policymakers could de-link the two, canceling the corresponding benefit increase, but then some people would be paying more into a system and receiving less.
Changes to the COLA formula
The legislation Harris supported as a senator would have changed the way the annual COLA is calculated.
Today, seniors receive an annual adjustment to their benefits based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). That index reflects the spending patterns of everyday Americans, but some argue that a different measure would be more accurate for older adults.
Harris would likely support changing the COLA so it’s based on the Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers (CPI-E), which weighs costs like medical expenses more heavily.
If that switch were to happen, as some recent legislation has called for, there are limitations. For one, the CPI-E is based on a much smaller sample. It also may not accurately reflect the spending habits of the millions of Social Security beneficiaries under 62.
A recent report from the Congressional Research Service found that switching to the CPI-E “is generally expected” to result in “higher COLAs and higher Social Security Benefits.” If that’s the case, Congress would still have to find a way to fix the looming insolvency.