President Donald Trump’s administration faces questions about possible modifications to Social Security, particularly around the retirement age. The debate intensified after contradictory statements from the highest officials, generating uncertainty among millions of Americans planning for retirement.
Frank Bisignano, appointed as Commissioner of Social Security, caused alarm on September 19, 2025, during an interview with Fox Business. His opening remarks suggested openness to significant changes: “everything is being considered and will be considered” in relation to adjustments to the retirement age. However, hours later he issued a strong clarification stating that “raising the retirement age is not under consideration.”
The official’s retraction did not completely dispel the doubts. Various political sectors and conservative organizations continue to actively propose modifications to the program’s retirement benefits while the federal government seeks solutions to the imminent financial crisis of the system.
Raising the Retirement Age: Official White House Position
Trump has publicly rejected any plans to raise the full retirement age. His official position includes repeated promises to protect Social Security without implementing cuts to beneficiaries. This statement contrasts with initiatives promoted by members of his own political party.
Republican factions have suggested raising the minimum retirement age to 69 or 70, arguing that adjustments are necessary in light of demographic changes. The president, however, has firmly rejected these suggestions. The contradiction between official rhetoric and statements from appointed officials is creating confusion about the true direction of government policy.
The administration faces pressure to clearly define its strategy regarding the program. Older voters, a crucial demographic group in presidential elections, closely observe every move related to their future benefits.
There Is a Legislative Proposal Circulating Around Washington
The Republican Study Committee mentions “modest adjustments” aimed at future retirees. These gradual modifications would seek to avoid an immediate impact on current beneficiaries or those nearing retirement. The strategy involves phased changes spread over decades.
The Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative organization, supports raising the eligibility age to nearly 70 years of age. Their main argument links this measure to the sustained increase in the life expectancy of Americans over the last few decades. According to this perspective, adjusting program parameters would reflect contemporary demographic realities.
Project 2025, a political plan developed by conservative sectors, incorporates similar proposals among its public policy recommendations. This document proposes structural reforms to the system of social protection, including modifications to the ages required to access full benefits.
The Potential Financial Impact on Pension and Retirement Payments
The Congressional Budget Office has calculated the economic consequences of increasing the full retirement age from 67 to 69 years old. Projections indicate a reduction of lifetime benefits between 5% and 10%, varying according to individual income levels.
People born during the 1970s would experience a decrease in their total benefits, falling from 12.7% to 11.6% of their accumulated lifetime earnings. This calculation considers the present value of the monthly payments received throughout the retirement period.
Each additional year in the minimum age required represents a 7% cut in total benefits. Low-income workers would see an approximate 5% reduction, while high-income professionals could face decreases of around 10%. The progressive structure of the system amplifies differential effects according to economic stratum.
Trump Can’t Move Forward That Easy
At least there is a silver lining, should Trump want to move forward with this idea: the president lacks the power to unilaterally modify Social Security. Any adjustment to the program requires legislative approval from Congress, including votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate. This constitutional requirement establishes controls on changes to fundamental social programs.
The changes require amendments to the Social Security Act (Title II of the federal code). The legislative process typically takes months or years, including hearings, debates, negotiations, and multiple rounds of voting. This procedural complexity reduces the likelihood of abrupt or unexpected changes.
