The Trump administration is once again at the center of a heated national debate, this time over a proposal that could dramatically reshape how older Americans qualify for Social Security disability benefits. The plan, first reported on October 5, 2025, would remove or significantly diminish age as a factor in determining eligibility—an adjustment that critics warn could strip hundreds of thousands of people of much-needed support just as they near retirement.
Representative John B. Larson, the House Social Security Subcommittee’s Ranking Member, did not mince words in his condemnation. According to Larson’s office, he called the proposal “cruel, reckless, and proof that Donald Trump never met a benefit he didn’t want to cut.” Larson’s outrage follows a similar plan floated by the Trump White House just a month prior, which aimed to cut Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for up to 400,000 Americans—a move that would affect about 4,300 Connecticut residents alone.
What exactly is on the table? According to The Washington Post and Daily Mail, the administration’s plan would overhaul the way the Social Security Administration (SSA) evaluates disability claims. Currently, the SSA weighs a person’s age, education, and work experience to determine if they can reasonably transition to different types of work. This system has long recognized that older applicants—typically those over age 50—face more hurdles in changing careers or adapting to new physical demands. But under the proposed changes, age could be removed as a consideration altogether, or the threshold could be raised to 60, making it much harder for people in their 50s and early 60s to qualify.
Supporters of the change, including Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and a key architect of the proposal, argue that the rules need to be updated to reflect modern realities. They point to increased life expectancy and the declining physical demands of many jobs as reasons why the system should be tightened. “Longer lifespans and less physically demanding work justify tightening eligibility,” supporters contend, as reported by Daily Mail.
But the plan’s critics see it very differently. Larson, speaking for many Democrats, accused the administration of targeting the most vulnerable. “Now he wants to go after Americans with disabilities – people who have worked their entire lives – only to be told they are on their own when they need help most,” Larson said, as cited by Larson’s office. He further charged, “Whether it is health care, food assistance, or Social Security, Donald Trump’s mission is the same: cut benefits for working people and hand the ‘savings’ to billionaires on Wall Street.”
The stakes are high. According to Jack Smalligan, a senior policy fellow at the Urban Institute and former OMB official, even a modest reduction in eligibility—say, 10 percent—could result in about 750,000 people losing disability benefits over the next decade. Smalligan also warned that about 80,000 widows and children could lose benefits tied to a disabled spouse or parent, as reported by Daily Mail. For many older Americans, losing access to disability means facing a stark choice: attempt to keep working despite health issues or take early retirement, which leads to permanently reduced Social Security payments.
The Social Security Administration itself has acknowledged that changes are coming, though it insists the process will be transparent. SSA spokesman Barton Mackey told Salon.com, “The agency is working on plans to ‘propose improvements to the disability adjudication process to ensure our disability program remains current and can be more efficiently administered.’” Mackey added that the proposal would be shared publicly, with a standard rulemaking process and an opportunity for public comment before any final decisions are made.
One part of the overhaul that even some critics concede is overdue involves updating the labor market data used in disability assessments. The current database, according to The Washington Post, still lists obsolete jobs like “nut sorter” and “telephone quotation clerk”—hardly reflective of today’s workforce. Following a 2022 investigation by The Washington Post that spotlighted these outdated listings, officials now say they plan to replace them with more current labor statistics.
Still, the central issue remains the fate of older applicants. As of 2022, almost 42 percent of disability applicants were found eligible due to their age—a factor that would be severely curtailed under the new plan, according to Larson’s office. Critics argue that removing age from consideration would disproportionately hurt workers in their 50s and 60s who, due to chronic illness or long-term injury, already face a daunting application process and lengthy wait times.
For many, the proposal feels like déjà vu. Back in 2020, the Trump administration weighed a similar rule change in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, only to back off amid public outcry. Now, with the midterm elections looming and Social Security once again a political lightning rod, the debate has reignited. The timing is no accident, with issues of solvency, benefits, and generational fairness all in play, as noted by Salon.com.
President Trump, for his part, has repeatedly insisted that he will “always protect and defend Social Security for American citizens.” White House spokesman Kush Desai told the Daily Mail, “The only policy change to Social Security is President Trump’s working families tax cut legislation that eliminated taxation of Social Security for almost all beneficiaries—which every single Democrat voted against.”
Yet, critics point out that Trump and his allies have consistently pushed for spending cuts across various social programs, including health care and food assistance. The current proposal, they argue, is just the latest in a series of attempts to shrink the federal safety net. The administration itself, as reported by The Washington Post, views the government shutdown as a tool to shrink government and target political foes—a stance that has only heightened partisan tensions.
As the rulemaking process unfolds, both sides are gearing up for a fight. Democrats have vowed to “fight tooth and nail to protect the basic support Americans have earned,” with Larson declaring, “These programs are not giveaways, they are promises. Breaking those promises – that's not leadership – it's betrayal. Not on our watch!”
For the millions of Americans who rely on disability benefits, the outcome of this battle is anything but theoretical. It could mean the difference between financial security and hardship in the years when support is needed most.
