Social Security needs money to fix its deficit. The question is who will pay?

Social Security is the largest social insurance program, paying about 75 million Americans every month.

However the program is facing an imminent funding shortfall.

The Social Security fund for pension benefits could run out by 2032, which could result in reductions in benefits across the board, according to projections from the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget Office.

Social Security has been on the brink of cuts before. In 1983, when the last major changes were made to the program, Social Security was months away from being able to pay full benefits.

At the time, lawmakers voted for bipartisan legislation that included income taxes on benefits and a gradual increase in the retirement age to reverse the program’s solution.

With the program facing an impending trust fund deadline, Washington leaders will need to come together again to fund the program — or cut back on opportunities if the program can’t pay benefits as promised.

During a March 25 Senate finance committee hearing focused on a “way forward” for the program, some leaders said Congress is committed to the task.

“We can do this,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, DR.I., spoke about problem solving for the program. “It’s really not that hard or complicated. And the sooner we do it, the better off everyone will be.”

Because any new Social Security legislation needs to clear the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, changes to the program must have bipartisan support, said Emerson Sprick, director of retirement and labor policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Additionally, the 2026 class of senators will be the first federally elected class to face future expiration dates during their six-year term, Sprick said.

“Members of Congress and their staffs recognize that this is something that needs to be done,” Srick said.

That starts with discussions between members of both sides of the aisle that can advance policy recommendations, he said.

Yet when it comes to making that change a reality, leaders in Washington still face one big question: How should it be paid for?

Here are some of the ideas that lawmakers and experts are talking about.

Over the next 75 years, Social Security faces a $25 trillion shortfall — the gap between projected revenue coming into the program and benefits that will be paid, according to estimates from the program’s administrators.

When adjusted for inflation, that total rises to $674 trillion, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said at a Senate finance committee hearing.

To address this shortfall, lawmakers have several options, Cassidy said: do nothing and allow an estimated 23% to 28% benefit cut, or do a combination of tax increases and benefit cuts. Lawmakers ultimately tried to find a solution that combined cuts and increases with the commission under President Barack Obama, and it failed, Cassidy said.

Alternatively, lawmakers could choose a third option, according to a proposal from Cassidy: create a mutual fund to help raise the program’s funding. The senator’s proposal has not been formally introduced as a bill.

With Cassidy’s plan, the government would borrow $1.5 trillion that would be invested in the same way as the 401(k), the Louisiana senator said in the lawsuit. The fund would be separated from the National Defense fund and would be held for 75 years, he said. The remaining amount will cover any loan necessary to help pay for the proposed benefits, Cassidy said in the lawsuit.

The plan will include “tough legal punches” to protect funds, according to Cassidy, including an independent system focused on maximizing revenue while preventing political interference. That would include an annual review and full transparency, he said.

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink recently wrote in his annual letter to shareholders that Social Security funds should be allowed to grow with the economy. Instead of the conservative Treasury bonds that Social Security funds are currently invested in, the money could be invested more aggressively, like other long-term pension plans, to achieve better returns, he wrote.

However, some experts have criticized Cassidy’s proposal, especially for the increased risk it may involve, since the benefits must be guaranteed. Furthermore, any profit would be reduced by the cost of borrowing the money.

During the trial, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said he supports the proposal as one solution to help solve the problem.

The loan money could be converted to be tied to other proposals to help bridge the debt settlement gap, Cain said. The benefits paid will not be determined by the fund’s earnings, he said. The plan will build on other models, most notably the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust, which was established in 2001 to invest in railroad retirement assets, according to Cassidy and Cain.

At a Senate budget committee meeting, Whitehouse introduced another proposal that would require people with incomes over $400,000 to pay more into Social Security.

The Social Security tax is included up to $184,500 in earnings in 2026. Once that limit is reached, high earners no longer pay in the annual program. Millions of dollars in annual income have stopped paying Social Security as of March 9.

Whitehouse’s bill, called the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, provides a $400,000 cap for Social Security operating and investment income, Whitehouse said at the hearing. The plan would close a loophole that allows some wealthy business owners to avoid paying Medicare taxes.

“The only way to expand solvency without reducing benefits or borrowing money, which can be very dangerous, is to raise more capital,” said Whitehouse during the hearing.

Whitehouse introduced the bill again in 2025 and Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania. The proposal would extend the duration of Social Security and Medicare to at least 75 years, according to analyzes by agency experts.

Eliminating the income tax has been a popular proposal among Democrats, with Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and others proposing to apply a Social Security tax to all incomes over $250,000. It remains to be seen whether Republicans would sign off on the tax increase.

Instead of raising Social Security income taxes for high earners, lawmakers could choose to cut benefits.

During the hearing of the Senate finance committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham, RS.C., said Social Security survivor benefits were an important part of her family’s life when both her parents died within about 15 months of each other.

“There was a time in my life where that Social Security check was really important,” Graham said.

“Well, there’s a time in my life where I can live on less money, and if that’s what it takes to save Social Security, by all means,” Graham said.

The Committee on a Responsible Federal Budget recently proposed cutting Social Security benefits for high-income earners who have always had high taxable incomes. The amount is $100,000 for couples and $50,000 for individuals.

This proposal was criticized by groups including AARP, as it would be against the purpose of the program to provide benefits that show what the beneficiaries have received and open the possibility to reduce other benefits.

At a separate Senate Committee on Aging on March 25, Warren floated the idea of ​​raising the retirement age, which other Trump administration officials have also suggested.

Raising the retirement age would mean an extra year without benefits, Dan Adcock, director of government relations and policy for the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare, said at the hearing.

“It doesn’t matter whether you claim benefits at 62 or 70 or how long you live, it’s a cut-off benefit any way you divide it,” Adcock said.

Such a change would be particularly harmful to those who need early retirement, he said.

Proponents of raising the retirement age say that Americans generally have longer life spans and that such a policy could be used to protect low-income people.

AARP members, most of whom are 50 years old and older, often say they want to see Social Security protected and strengthened, ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ of which the vice president of financial security and community living at the non-profit organization that represents the elderly in America.

To do that, Congress needs to get serious about talking about solvency and putting ideas on the table, Jones said. The Senate case allowed for multiple options to be considered, he said.

“That’s what the process should look like,” Jones said. “It’s an open debate.”

But because Social Security reform will likely involve a mix of ideas, it’s impossible to recommend a single approach right now, Jones said.

“We have to be able to see and evaluate the whole package to understand what it will mean for millions of people,” Jones said, not just the current beneficiaries, but their children and grandchildren.