Social Security, the backbone of America’s retirement safety net, marked its 90th anniversary this August—a milestone that should have been a cause for celebration but instead cast a spotlight on the program’s increasingly precarious future. Signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in August 1935, Social Security now sends monthly payments to nearly 69 million Americans, providing vital support for older adults, the disabled, and survivors. Yet, as the program enters its tenth decade, warnings about its long-term solvency have grown louder, and the debate over how to preserve it has become more urgent and contentious than ever.
At a press conference from the Oval Office on August 14, 2025, President Donald Trump commemorated the anniversary, proclaiming his support for Social Security and declaring, as reported by The Washington Post, that his administration was “strengthening” the program. But beneath the celebratory rhetoric, a host of unresolved questions and looming deadlines remain. Despite repeated pledges to protect Social Security, neither the president nor Congress has put forward a comprehensive plan to shore up its finances for the generations to come.
The most immediate threat is the projected depletion of the program’s main trust fund. According to the 2024 Trustees Report, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund—which pays retirement and survivors benefits—is expected to exhaust its reserves by 2033. That’s a year earlier than last year’s estimate, and a year sooner than the Social Security Administration’s own June 2025 report, which pegged the “go-broke” date at 2034. When that happens, Social Security will be able to pay only about 77% to 81% of scheduled benefits, relying solely on incoming payroll taxes. The Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, meanwhile, is on a more stable footing and isn’t projected to run dry as soon.
Insolvency, however, does not mean the program will vanish overnight. As MarketWatch and Texas Border Business explain, it means that benefit checks will shrink automatically—by about 23%—unless Congress steps in. The specter of smaller checks for millions of retirees and survivors has fueled anxiety, especially among those who depend on Social Security as their primary source of income.
Recent legislative changes have added new wrinkles to the program’s financial outlook. The Social Security Fairness Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden and enacted in January 2025, repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions, raising benefits for certain former public workers. This move, while popular among affected groups, contributed to the earlier projected depletion date by increasing overall benefit payouts.
President Trump, for his part, signed the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill on July 4, 2025. The legislation raised the standard tax deduction for seniors to $6,000, meaning that 88% to 90% of seniors will no longer pay income taxes on their Social Security benefits, according to the bill’s description cited by Wikipedia. While this change has been well received by retirees, experts warn that it reduces the amount of tax revenue flowing into Social Security, potentially accelerating the OASI depletion date by up to a year. “It’s a tax cut, not a fix,” policy analysts told The Washington Post, emphasizing that the bill offers immediate relief but does nothing to address the program’s long-term funding gap.
Despite campaign-trail claims and Oval Office assurances, there is no credible evidence that President Trump intends to cancel Social Security benefits. In fact, he has repeatedly pledged to protect them, as reported by Texas Border Business and The Washington Post. Yet, critics point out that several members of his administration have long supported cutting or restructuring benefits, raising persistent concerns about the program’s future direction.
Public opposition to privatizing Social Security remains strong. The idea of partial or full privatization was floated most recently when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested that new tax-deferred “Trump accounts” could serve as a “backdoor for privatizing Social Security.” The Treasury Department later walked back those comments, but the episode revived memories of President George W. Bush’s unsuccessful 2005 push for voluntary private retirement accounts—a proposal that was widely rejected by the public at the time.
Glenn Hubbard, a Columbia University professor and former top economic adviser in the Bush White House, told The Associated Press that Social Security must shrink in size to remain sustainable for future generations. He supports limiting benefits for wealthy retirees, noting, “We will have to make a choice. If you want Social Security benefits to look like they are today, we’re going to have to raise everyone’s taxes a lot. And if that’s what people want, that’s a menu, and you pay the high price and you move on.” Hubbard also suggested increasing minimum benefits while slowing benefit growth for others as a way to stabilize the program over time. “It’s really a political choice,” he added. “Neither one of those is pain free.”
Others, like Rachel Greszler of the Heritage Foundation, argue for shrinking the program further and introducing optional privatization, such as allowing workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into personal investment accounts. She also proposes a flat benefit for all retirees with the same years of work, which she claims would boost benefits for the lowest earners—though the impact on the middle class remains unclear.
For many Americans, the uncertainty is deeply personal. Becky Boober, a 70-year-old retiree from Rockport, Maine, told The Associated Press that she relies on Social Security to keep her finances afloat and believes the program should be expanded, not cut. “So much of what we hear is that it’s running out of money,” she said. Boober supports raising the income cap on high earners and, perhaps, the retirement age—a move she’s less enthusiastic about, but willing to consider if it helps preserve the program for future retirees.
Meanwhile, the Social Security Administration itself is under strain. In 2025, the agency cut more than 7,000 staff positions as part of a broader push for government efficiency. Unions and advocacy groups have sounded alarms about the impact of these cuts on service delivery and the security of sensitive beneficiary information.
Looking ahead, the challenges are formidable. AARP CEO Myechia Minter-Jordan projects that the number of Social Security beneficiaries will climb to 82 million by 2035, the program’s centennial. “As we look ahead to the next 90 years of Social Security, it’s critical that it remains strong for generations to come,” she said in a statement.
Experts across the political spectrum agree that fixing Social Security’s funding gap will require hard choices: increasing revenue—whether through higher payroll taxes, lifting the income cap, or redirecting federal funds—or reducing future benefits. As The Daily Beast observed, “Few politicians want to be seen as cutting benefits, but failing to act will have the same effect through automatic reductions.” The clock is ticking, and the fate of Social Security hangs in the balance, demanding action from leaders who have so far offered more promises than solutions.
As Social Security enters its tenth decade, the debate over its future is no longer abstract or distant—it’s a matter of urgent national concern, with real consequences for millions of Americans who depend on it every month.
