Demonstrators attend a rally asking Rep. Kean to “Stop MAGA Cuts! Protect Social Security!” on Feb. 24, 2023 in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
Dave Kotinsky | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images
Voters who show up at the polls this November may not just be choosing among Republicans, Democrats and third-party tickets — but also casting a vote on the future of Social Security.
Social Security is expected to pay $1.5 trillion in benefits to an average of almost 68 million Americans per month in 2024.
Meanwhile, Social Security’s trust funds are projected to run out in the next decade, which will prompt an across-the-board benefit cut of at least 20% if no changes happen sooner. As Congress weighs that dilemma, they will also decide Social Security’s future role in Americans’ lives.
Democratic lawmakers like Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., who is running for reelection this year, say today’s benefits are not enough.
“Nobody’s getting wealthy on Social Security,” Larson said in a recent interview with CNBC, noting that more than 5 million Americans receive monthly benefit checks that are below the federal poverty level.
“It is the very sustenance that 40% of all Americans need just to get by, and it hasn’t been adjusted in more than 50 years,” Larson said.
‘Why hasn’t Congress voted?’
In 1983, when the last major Social Security reforms were enacted, there were no benefit enhancements, Larson argued.Among the changes put in place at that time was a gradual increase in the retirement age, taxes on benefit income and reduced benefits for public employees with pensions.
For years, Larson has championed a bill — Social Security 2100 — that aims to increase benefits for all beneficiaries by lifting the payroll tax cap for taxpayers earning over $400,000.Today, annual earnings of up to $168,600 are subject to a 6.2% payroll tax toward Social Security paid by both workers and employers. Larson’s plan also calls for closing loopholes that allow wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying Social Security taxes on other income.
Larson said the public is well aware that Social Security benefits are theirs and they’ve paid for them. Yet the same question comes up again and again: “Why hasn’t Congress voted?”
Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., speaks during an event to introduce legislation called the Social Security 2100 Act. which would increase increase benefits and strengthen the fund, on Capitol Hill on Jan. 30, 2019.
Mark Wilson | Getty Images News | Getty Images
The latest version of Larson’s bill has 184 Democratic co-sponsors yet has never been brought to the House floor for a vote.
Another bill, the Social Security Fairness Act, has even broader support, with 318 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, yet that also has yet to be put up for a vote. That proposal tackles just two changes also included in Larson’s bill — repealing the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset rules that limit Social Security benefit income for individuals who receive other benefits like pensions from a state or local government.
Retirement age may be pushed higher
Meanwhile, the Republican Study Committee’s budget, comprising proposals from 192 Republican House members, has suggested changes to Social Security, like raising the retirement age, as it seeks to cut federal spending across the board.
Democrats have called out the more than $1.5 trillion in cuts to Social Security that the Republicans’ proposal may entail.
By raising the retirement age for everyone 59 and younger, Budget Committee Democrats estimate that 257 million people would have to work longer.
The Republican budget proposal has prompted fears that the party could move to enact those changes through a closed-door commission, Nancy Altman, president of advocacy organization Social Security Works, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee last week.
In response, Rep. Drew Ferguson, R-Georgia, who serves as chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, said the committee would not be voting on the Republican budget proposal.
“I have said many times that the only way that this gets solved is in a bipartisan open forum,” said Ferguson during the hearing.
Path to bipartisan compromise uncertain
But how a bipartisan effort should proceed is up for debate.
Larson hopes to bring his Social Security 2100 proposal to the House floor for a vote, betting that some Republicans may come around and back making benefits more generous.
The extra money sent to the nation’s seniors would be spent in their districts, he argued. Moreover, the tax increases would require wealthy individuals to pay what every other working American is already contributing to Social Security, he said.
During last week’s hearing, Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said that while he respects Larson’s passion, he still expects it will be necessary for lawmakers to agree on some combination of tax increases and benefit cuts that will affect future beneficiaries.
Experts including Charles Blahous, senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, agreed.
“The size of the shortfall now is so huge, and so far beyond anything that lawmakers have successfully closed before, the notion that either party can ram through its preferred solution is fanciful,” Blahous said.
Benefits are regularly increased, Blahous argues, through changes to the initial benefit formula and cost-of-living adjustments.
Larson, for his part, has vowed to “never give up, never relent,” when it comes to pushing for his proposal.
Social Security advocates argue that those changes are what people want.
“If you expand Social Security’s benefits … and you pay for it by requiring the uber wealthy to pay their fair share, you will receive widespread praise and the gratitude of the nation,” Altman told members of the House Ways and Means Committee last week.
The U.S. Department of Education is seen on March 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to sign an executive order to abolish the Department of Education.
Win Mcnamee | Getty Images News | Getty Images
The U.S. Department of Education is pausing its plan to garnish people’s Social Security benefits if they have defaulted on their student loans, a spokesperson for the agency tells CNBC.
“The Trump Administration is committed to protecting Social Security recipients who oftentimes rely on a fixed income,” said Ellen Keast, an Education Department spokesperson.
The development is an abrupt change in policy by the administration.
The Trump administration announced on April 21 that it would resume collection activity on the country’s $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio. For nearly half a decade, the government did not go after those who’d fallen behind as part of Covid-era policies.
The federal government has extraordinary collection powers on its student loans and it can seize borrowers’ tax refunds, paychecks and Social Security retirement and disability benefits. Social Security recipients can see their checks reduced by up to 15% to pay back their defaulted student loan.
More than 450,000 federal student loan borrowers age 62 and older are in default on their federal student loans and likely to be receiving Social Security benefits, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
The massive package of tax cuts House Republicans passed in May is expected to increase the U.S. debt by trillions of dollars — a sum that threatens to torpedo the legislation as the Senate starts to consider it this week.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the bill, as written, would add about $3.1 trillion to the national debt over a decade with interest, to a total $53 trillion. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates a higher tally: $3.8 trillion, including interest and economic effects.
Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was one of two Republicans to vote against the House measure, calling it a “debt bomb ticking” and noting that it “dramatically increases deficits in the near term.”
“Congress can do funny math — fantasy math — if it wants,” Massie said on the House floor on May 22. “But bond investors don’t.”
A handful of Republican Senators have also voiced concern about the bill’s potential addition to the U.S. debt load and other aspects of the legislation.
“The math doesn’t really add up,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said Sunday on CBS.
The legislation comes as interest payments on U.S. debt have surpassed national spending on defense and represent the second-largest outlay behind Social Security. Federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, a measure of U.S. economic output, is already at an all-time high.
The notion of rising national debt may seem unimportant for the average person, but it can have a significant impact on household finances, economists said.
“I don’t think most consumers think about it at all,” said Tim Quinlan, senior economist at Wells Fargo Economics. “They think, ‘It doesn’t really impact me.’ But I think the truth is, it absolutely does.”
Consumer loans would be ‘a lot more’ expensive
A much higher U.S. debt burden would likely cause consumers to “pay a lot more” to finance homes, cars and other common purchases, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s.
“That’s the key link back to us as consumers, businesspeople and investors: The prospect that all this borrowing, the rising debt load, mean higher interest rates,” he said.
The House legislation cuts taxes for households by about $4 trillion, most of which accrue for the wealthy. The bill offsets some of those tax cuts by slashing spending for safety-net programs like Medicaid and food assistance for lower earners.
Some Republicans and White House officials argue President Trump’s tariff policies would offset a big chunk of the tax cuts.
But economists say tariffs are an unreliable revenue generator — because a future president can undo them, and courts may take them off the books.
How rising debt impacts Treasury yields
U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) speaks to the media after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Donald Trump’s agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025.
Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images News | Getty Images
Ultimately, higher interest rates for consumers ties to perceptions of U.S. debt loads and their effect on U.S. Treasury bonds.
Common forms of consumer borrowing like mortgages and auto loans are priced based on yields for U.S. Treasury bonds, particularly the 10-year Treasury.
Yields (i.e., interest rates) for long-term Treasury bonds are largely dictated by market forces. They rise and fall based on supply and demand from investors.
The U.S. relies on Treasury bonds to fund its operations. The government must borrow, since it doesn’t take in enough annual tax revenue to pay its bills, what’s known as an annual “budget deficit.” It pays back Treasury investors with interest.
If the Republican bill — called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — were to raise the U.S. debt and deficit by trillions of dollars, it would likely spook investors and Treasury demand may fall, economists said.
Investors would likely demand a higher interest rate to compensate for the additional risk that the U.S. government may not pay its debt obligations in a timely way down the road, economists said.
Interest rates priced to the 10-year Treasury “also have to go up because of the higher risk being taken,” said Philip Chao, chief investment officer and certified financial planner at Experiential Wealth based in Cabin John, Maryland.
Moody’s cut the U.S.’ sovereign credit rating in May, citing the increasing burden of the federal budget deficit and signaling a bigger credit risk for investors. Bond yields spiked on the news.
How debt may impact consumer borrowing
Zandi cited a general rule of thumb to illustrate what a higher debt burden could mean for consumers: The 10-year Treasury yield rises about 0.02 percentage points for each 1-point increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio, he said.
For example, if the ratio were to rise from 100% (roughly where it is now) to 130%, the 10-year Treasury yield would increase about 0.6 percentage points, Zandi said. That would push the yield to more than 5% relative to current levels of around 4.5%, he said.
“It’s a big deal,” Zandi said.
A fixed 30-year mortgage would rise from almost 7% to roughly 7.6%, all else equal — likely putting homeownership further “out of reach,” especially for many potential first-time buyers, he said.
The debt-to-GDP ratio would swell from about 101% at the end of 2025 to an estimated 148% through 2034 under the as-written House legislation, said Kent Smetters, an economist and faculty director for the Penn Wharton Budget Model.
Bond investors get hit, too
It’s not just consumer borrowers: Certain investors would also stand to lose, experts said.
When Treasury yields rise, prices fall for current bondholders. Their current Treasury bonds become less valuable, weighing on investment portfolios.
“If the market interest rate has gone up, your bond has depreciated,” Chao said. “Your net worth has gone down.”
The market for long-term Treasury bonds has been more volatile amid investor jitters, leading some experts to recommend shorter-term bonds.
On the flip side, those buying new bonds may be happy because they can earn a higher rate, he said.
‘Pouring gasoline on the fire’
The cost of consumer financing has already roughly doubled in recent years, said Quinlan of Wells Fargo.
The average 10-year Treasury yield was about 2.1% from 2012 to 2022; it has been about 4.1% from 2023 to the present, he said.
Of course, the U.S. debt burden is just one of many things that influence Treasury investors and yields, Quinlan said. For example, Treasury investors sent yields sharply higher as they rushed for the exits after Trump announced a spate of country-specific tariffs in April, as they questioned the safe-haven status of U.S. assets.
“But it’s not going out on too much of a limb to suggest financial markets the last couple years have grown increasingly concerned about debt levels,” Quinlan said.
Absent action, the U.S. debt burden would still rise, economists said. The debt-to-GDP ratio would swell to 138% even if Republicans don’t pass any legislation, Smetters said.
But the House legislation would be “pouring gasoline on the fire,” said Chao.
“It’s adding to the problems we already have,” Chao said. “And this is why the bond market is not happy with it,” he added.
That’s often not a quick trip: Nearly one-quarter of seniors live more than an hour away from their local Social Security field office, according to a new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Meanwhile, half of seniors need to drive for at least 33 minutes without traffic to get to their Social Security office.
The policy changewill lead to more than 1 million hours of travel per year, according to the nonpartisan policy and research institute.
Why more people need to visit Social Security offices
The Social Security Administration said the new direct deposit requirements would curb fraud, which it said it’s been working to root out in coordination with the Trump administration’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
Since 2023, the agency has experienced a “marked increase” in allegations of direct deposit fraud, a Social Security Administration official said via email.
In March, SSA implemented enhanced fraud protection for direct deposit changes. Between March 29 and April 26, the enhanced fraud protection flagged more than 20,000 Social Security numbers where phone direct deposit requests failed security measures that check for multiple fraud indicators.
Of the direct deposit transactions flagged, 61% to 72% of individuals never resubmitted their requests, a “strong indicator” that many of those attempts may not have been legitimate, according to the SSA official.
The agency estimates $19.9 million in losses were avoided as a result of the enhanced safety measures.
However, advocates say the change is an overreaction, given the scale of such fraud. The Social Security Administration has said about 40% of direct deposit fraud comes from phone calls attempting to change direct deposit information.
In early 2024, anti-fraud officials at the agency told The New York Times that about 2,000 beneficiaries had their direct deposits redirected over the prior year. By those estimates, that would mean just 800 of those people experienced direct deposit fraud by phone, according to Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Yet the agency is now requiring about 2 million elderly and disabled individuals to visit its offices to prevent such fraud, she said.
To help ensure benefit payments are not misdirected, the Social Security Administration has tightened beneficiaries’ ability to change their bank information over the phone.
As of April 28, individuals who want to change their direct deposit information will need to log into or create a personal My Social Security online account and obtain a one-time code before they call the agency’s 800 number.
Individuals who cannot use online or automatic enrollment services will need to visit a local field office to verify their identity in person. While the agency encourages those individuals to make an appointment, it is also possible to walk in for direct deposit changes.
Individuals who want to change their direct deposit information may also use automatic enrollment services through their bank. To do so, individuals need to contact their bank directly. Not all financial institutions participate in this process, according to SSA.
Because many seniors or disabled individuals do not have internet service, computers or smart phones — or if they do, may not know how to use those resources — many will likely have to make an in-person visit to their local Social Security office.
About 6 million seniors don’t drive, while almost 8 million older Americans have a medical condition or disability that makes it difficult for them to travel, according to CBPP research.
Where seniors may face longest drive times
In-person appointments may be burdensome for beneficiaries who face long travel times to get to their nearest Social Security office, according to the CBPP analysis.
In 31 states, more than 25% of seniors face travel times of more than an hour to get to their local field office.
In certain less-populated states, more than 40% of seniors would need to drive more than an hour. Those include Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.
In other states, around 25% to 39% of seniors would need to travel over an hour. That includes Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Virginia.
Residents of other states may also face a burden if they do not live near their closest Social Security field office.
The analysis is a conservative estimate to help assess how much time it may cost individuals who are affected by the policy, according to Devin O’Connor, senior fellow at the CBPP.
For example, it doesn’t take into account the time spent getting an appointment to visit a Social Security office and the time spent waiting for the appointment, he said.
The CBPP’s analysis was created with information from multiple sources including the 2022 National Household Travel Survey, SSA field office location data, the OpenTimes travel time database and the Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey.
The Social Security Administration has not independently validated the data, the agency said via email in response to a request for comment.
Staffing cuts may add to appointment wait times
Notably, the new direct deposit requirements come as the Social Security Administration has moved to cut its work force by about 7,000 employees, reductions that have led some of the agency’s field offices to be “understaffed,” O’Connor said.
However, while it had been reported that DOGE planned to close Social Security field offices to help curb spending, thus far that has largely not happened, he said. The Social Security Administration has denied it plans to close local field offices.
Individuals who need to visit a Social Security field office will also be confronted by long wait times for appointments. Currently, just 43% of individuals are able to get a benefit appointment within 28 days, Social Security Administration data shows.
The agency’s new policy to limit phone transactions has been scaled back. The agency had proposed limiting the ability to apply for benefits over the phone, but after it received pushback from organizations including the AARP, the agency changed that policy to limit only direct deposit transactions.