Trump Is Running Out the Social Security Clock, Senator Warns - Here's What She Wants Done

The clock is ticking on Social Security, and Kirsten Gillibrand says Congress cannot afford to keep waiting.

She recently warned that "Americans who have worked hard their entire lives deserve every dollar of Social Security they were promised, but their benefits are now projected to be cut by more than 20% in six years," accusing the Trump administration of failing to act before the funding deadline gets even closer.

Gillibrand's answer is to support legislation that raises Social Security payroll taxes on the highest earners while leaving everyone else's tax bill unchanged. Her proposal offers a closer look at one of the biggest ideas lawmakers are considering as they debate the future of senior benefits.

Where Gillibrand stands

Kirsten Gillibrand is one of eleven Senate cosponsors backing the Social Security Expansion Act, a bill introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders that would ask the highest earners to pay Social Security payroll taxes on more of their income.

Today, the tax applies only to the first $184,500 a worker earns each year. Under the proposal, earnings above $250,000 would also be subject to the tax.

Gillibrand's office says the change would leave more than 91% of American households with no increase in their Social Security taxes. The added revenue would come from households earning more than $250,000.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the change would bring in roughly $1.4 to $1.6 trillion over the next decade. The bill's sponsors say the revenue, combined with other provisions in the legislation, would extend Social Security's solvency for 75 years.

The bill also includes benefit expansions, such as higher cost-of-living adjustments and an improved minimum benefit for long-career low earners.

Why she says the clock is running out

Kirsten Gillibrand believes Congress should act before Social Security gets much closer to its funding deadline. "Seniors on fixed incomes cannot afford a benefit cut – they need relief," she said. She has also urged Republicans to "stop running out the clock and work with Democrats to strengthen Social Security before it's too late."

According to the 2026 Trustees Report, the retirement trust fund is projected to run short in late 2032. If Congress does nothing before then, ongoing payroll taxes would cover about 78% of scheduled benefits.

Gillibrand believes addressing the funding gap now would give lawmakers more options than waiting until the deadline is much closer.

How this proposal compares with other ideas

Gillibrand and the bill's other cosponsors want to strengthen Social Security by asking the highest earners to contribute more. Other proposals would instead reduce future costs by slowing annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) or raising the full retirement age.

For example, switching to chained CPI for annual COLAs is estimated to save about $260 billion over the next decade, while raising the full retirement age to 70 would save about $150 billion.

Those savings come from paying lower lifetime benefits than retirees would receive under current law, while Gillibrand's proposal keeps benefits the same and places the added cost on higher-income households.

That difference appears to line up with how many Americans view the debate. An AARP survey in 2025 found that 85% of Americans, including about 75% of Republicans, support strengthening Social Security by raising taxes rather than cutting benefits.

Why the proposal faces resistance

Passing the Social Security Expansion Act would require 60 votes in the Senate, which means Sanders, Gillibrand, and the bill's other backers would need support from at least some Republicans.

Some critics argue that applying Social Security payroll taxes to earnings above $250,000 would leave certain business owners with a much larger tax bill, reducing money they could otherwise use to invest or hire new workers.

Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, argue the program's funding gap is too large to solve through tax increases alone and believe benefit changes will eventually need to be part of the conversation.

Gillibrand argues the proposal keeps the Social Security tax rate exactly the same. The only change is that the existing rate would apply to more income for the highest earners.

What this means for your Social Security

Anyone earning less than $184,500 a year would see no change to their Social Security payroll tax. The increase applies only to earnings above $250,000.

Someone earning $500,000 in wages, for instance, would pay about $15,500 more in Social Security payroll taxes each year, with the employer contributing the same amount. Self-employed workers could owe both shares of the tax, subject to the usual tax rules.

If the proposal became law, supporters believe the added revenue would put Social Security on stronger financial footing and give Congress more time to work on the program's future.

Bottom line

Kirsten Gillibrand has thrown her support behind one of Congress's most ambitious plans for strengthening Social Security, and public polling suggests many Americans are open to the general approach. Whether the bill can clear the 60-vote threshold in the Senate is a different question.

The debate still has a long way to go, giving you time to understand the proposals as they develop and make the right moves before Congress reaches a final decision.