This week, Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Bill Cassidy, R-La., Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Angus King, I-Maine, introduced a bipartisan proposal to encourage congressional action on Social Security: the Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone, or PROMISE, Act.
The PROMISE Act tackles the long-term finances of Social Security’s retirement program by moving reform out of endless discussion and into an actual legislative process. The bill itself does not raise payroll taxes, reduce benefits, change the retirement age or alter eligibility rules. Instead, it creates a framework in which those options, or some combination of them, could be evaluated, amended and put to a vote.
The Social Security 2026 Trustees Report was released earlier this year and showed that within six years, if Congress does nothing, Social Security income will cover only about 78% of scheduled retirement benefits. That warning is especially consequential for federal employees covered under the Federal Employees Retirement System because FERS was built on three coordinated sources of retirement income: the FERS basic benefit, Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan. For federal workers, Social Security reform is not an abstract national budget debate. It directly affects retirement timing, income planning, TSP savings decisions and confidence in the federal retirement promise.
Because FERS employees pay Social Security taxes and rely on Social Security for a meaningful share of retirement income, changes to the program’s solvency, claiming rules, disability protections or benefit formulas can directly affect their retirement planning. Understanding the role Social Security plays in that plan is essential. It helps employees estimate lifetime income, decide when to claim benefits, determine how much to save in the TSP, evaluate survivor and disability protections and judge whether they can afford to retire at a particular age.
Social Security’s YouTube channel has a variety of recorded training videos that explain what to know before signing up, earnings limits, how survivor benefits work, how to change your address and even the history of Social Security.
Social Security planning is especially important for retirees who receive the FERS retirement annuity supplement, which is designed to bridge the gap between federal retirement and first eligibility for Social Security. According to OPM, the supplement stops at the end of the month before a retiree turns 62, even if the retiree chooses not to apply for Social Security at that time. As a result, some federal retirees may feel financial pressure to claim Social Security as soon as they become eligible at age 62 to replace the income lost when the supplement ends. Others may choose to delay claiming to achieve a higher monthly benefit, but only if their TSP savings, FERS annuity, spouse’s income or other resources can cover the gap.
A 2025 poll released by the Bipartisan Policy Center on Social Security’s 90th anniversary underscores why reform has broad public urgency. The survey, commissioned by BPC’s American Savings Education Council and conducted by Public First, found that 93% of Americans consider Social Security a valuable federal program and 83% believe addressing its challenges should be a top priority for Congress.
The same poll found deep anxiety about the program’s future: 74% of respondents were concerned Social Security could run out before they retire, 80% worried Congress would cut benefits and 41% expected Social Security to be their primary source of retirement income. For federal employees covered under FERS, Social Security is not a supplemental benefit. It is one of the system’s three core retirement pillars. If workers broadly fear benefit reductions or insolvency, FERS employees have reason to reassess retirement dates, TSP contribution levels, survivor planning and assumptions about post-retirement income.
The poll therefore reinforces that Social Security reform is not only a national retirement issue but also a direct workforce and financial security issue for current and future federal retirees. The findings also showed bipartisan appetite for action, with majorities of Democrats and Republicans agreeing that lawmakers should work across party lines to strengthen the program.
The current funding debate also echoes the Social Security crisis of 1982, but with an important difference in timing and scale. In the early 1980s, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund was projected to run out of money as early as August 1983, leaving the program only months away from being unable to pay full benefits on time. That emergency led to the Greenspan Commission and the 1983 Social Security Amendments, a bipartisan package that accelerated payroll tax increases, delayed cost-of-living adjustments, taxed some benefits, gradually raised the full retirement age and brought newly hired federal employees into Social Security.
Today’s crisis is less immediate but potentially harder to solve. Trust fund depletion is still several years away, yet the long-term gap between scheduled benefits and dedicated payroll tax revenue is larger and driven by demographic pressures that have been building for decades. The lesson for today is that waiting until the last minute may preserve political convenience, but it narrows the choices available to workers, retirees and federal employees who need time to adjust their retirement plans.
The PROMISE Act would not guarantee a particular outcome, but it could make it harder for lawmakers to postpone decisions indefinitely. The bill would create a structured congressional process for developing and voting on a long-term Social Security solvency plan.
