Warren asks Trump’s position on raising Social Security retirement age

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is calling on the Trump administration to clarify its stance on raising the retirement age — a move she said she opposes.

In a new letter sent to President Donald Trump on Sunday night, Warren cited details from the Social Security Administration’s latest trustees report. In late 2032 — just a bit more than six years from now — the trust fund Social Security relies on to pay retirement benefits will run out, according to new projections in the report. At that time, 78% of those benefits will be payable if lawmakers take no action.

“Republicans have a history of attempting to increase the retirement age, privatize Social Security, or otherwise cut Social Security benefits, and some Congressional Republicans have called to raise the retirement age or means-test benefits as the ‘solution’ to this problem,” Warren wrote with Democratic Sens. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

Changes to the Social Security age thresholds would be tantamount to a benefit cut, experts have said.

It “hurts older Americans, cutting monthly benefits and forcing millions into poverty,” the lawmakers wrote.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the letter.

Asked last week about the administration’s plans for the program, including perhaps raising the retirement age, White House spokesperson Liz Huston told CNBC in an email that, “President Trump will always protect and strengthen Social Security.”

Warren’s letter also comes shortly after House Speaker Mike Johnson reportedly told a Louisiana radio station that he intends to push forward with a plan to address spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid next year.

The Republican Study Committee, a large group of House Republicans, had previously called for raising the retirement age in its budget proposal. However, in a January press release, the group stated its latest budget “balances the books without cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits” or “raising the Social Security retirement age.”

Lawmakers generally may repair Social Security’s solvency by raising taxes, cutting benefits or a combination of both.

Raising the retirement age would be a cut, since people would need to delay claiming to receive their full monthly benefit.

Currently, Social Security beneficiaries receive 100% of the benefits they’ve earned at their full retirement age. For people born in 1960 and later, that age is 67. Raising that bar could reduce benefits for people who claim at that age or earlier.

“In practice, raising the retirement age by two years would reduce the median retiree’s monthly benefits by $345 to $741 — or by between 17 and 35 percent — effectively cutting tens of millions of Americans’ Social Security benefits and disproportionately falling on seniors at the lower end of the income distribution who rely on Social Security as one of their main sources of income,” Warren, Duckworth and Blumenthal wrote in the letter to Trump.

Social Security’s retirement age has gradually increased from 65 to 67 following reforms passed by Congress in 1983. At that time, the program faced imminent funding issues, and the age changes were added to the package to restore the program’s solvency.

Raising the retirement age again would not provide an easy fix to Social Security’s current funding woes, some experts say.

When the retirement age was last changed, it took decades to gradually take effect, Joel Eskovitz, senior director of Social Security and savings at the AARP Public Policy Institute, said during a virtual briefing on Thursday about the trustees report. The briefing was hosted by the National Academy of Social Insurance, a nonprofit focused on social insurance policy.

“Raising the retirement age really doesn’t do anything in this short-term conversation,” Eskovitz said. “It is a fix for a long-term problem.”

Additionally, it’s not clear that it’s a “great fix,” he said.

While Social Security’s trustees report shows life expectancy increasing into the future, that will not be experienced equally, Eskovitz said. People who tend to live longer are wealthy and have higher levels of education, he said.

Raising the retirement age may also steepen the reductions claimants receive for taking benefits early, starting from age 62, according to Eskovitz.

Because restoring Social Security’s solvency will likely require multiple changes, some experts — including Jason Fichtner, a senior fellow at NASI — say raising the retirement age should be an option that is considered. Fichtner previously served in roles at the Social Security Administration, including acting deputy commissioner and chief economist.

However, raising the retirement age would need to coincide with other changes, Fichtner said, such as establishing a stronger minimum benefit for individuals who cannot work past age 62 due to health issues or physically demanding jobs.

Increasing the retirement age would not be an immediate fix, but could help the program decades from now, according to Fichtner.

Yet any change to the retirement age could be a tough sell.

AARP opposes any changes that cut Americans’ Social Security payments, including raising the retirement age, Nancy LeaMond, chief advocacy and engagement officer, said during a May 28 media briefing.

Americans broadly opposed benefit cuts, including raising the retirement age, according to a 2025 survey by NASI, AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

A group of Senate Democrats, including Warren, as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., proposed a bill last year that they said could restore Social Security’s solvency for 75 years and increase benefits, while avoiding cuts like raising the retirement age.

To pay for that, the proposal, known as the Social Security Expansion Act, calls for extending payroll taxes on wages, salaries and self-employment earnings for income over $250,000. It would also increase the net investment income tax, and make it so that levy applies to active trade or business income.

To move forward, the legislation would need the support of Republicans, since Social Security reform cannot be done through a one-party majority. However, Republicans have largely opposed tax increases.

The bill has been with the Senate Finance Committee since February 2025.