Social Security Plans in the 2026 Midterm Elections: Where Senate Candidates Stand
Social Security has become a central issue in the 2026 midterm elections because the program’s main trust fund is projected to be depleted in 2032. If Congress does not act, ongoing payroll-tax revenue would cover only about 78% of scheduled benefits, producing an automatic 22% cut.
The stakes are especially high in Senate races because the lawmakers elected this November will still be in office when the funding shortfall arrives. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation found that 81% of voters in five competitive Senate states said they were more likely to back a candidate with a plan to prevent automatic benefit cuts.
Why Social Security Needs a Fix
Social Security is financed primarily by a 12.4% payroll tax, split between workers and employers. In 2026, that tax applies only to the first $184,500 of earnings, according to the Social Security Administration.
As the population ages, more people are receiving retirement, disability and survivor benefits while the number of workers paying into the system has not grown at the same pace. That imbalance is why candidates are debating whether to raise revenue, reduce benefits, change retirement rules or pursue a combination of reforms.
Candidate Proposals at a Glance
The table below compares the positions of prominent Senate candidates and officeholders discussed in recent campaign coverage. Some candidates have detailed plans, while others have expressed broad support for protecting benefits without specifying how they would pay for them.
| Candidate | State / office | Social Security proposal | Position on the payroll-tax cap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abdul El-Sayed | Michigan Senate | Remove the employee payroll-tax cap so higher earners contribute more | Supports eliminating it |
| Mike Rogers | Michigan Senate | Focus on addressing fraud and improving the program | No specific cap proposal reported |
| Troy Jackson | Maine Senate | Eliminate the cap; says billionaires should pay into Social Security at the same rate as teachers and loggers | Supports eliminating it |
| Susan Collins | Maine Senate | Create a bipartisan commission to examine solutions, including potentially raising the earnings cap; opposes benefit cuts | Open to raising or adjusting it |
| John Deaton | Massachusetts Senate | Calls raising or closing the cap “common sense” | Supports raising or eliminating it |
| Roger Marshall | Kansas Senate | Says he would “eliminate the cap altogether” | Supports eliminating it |
| Jon Husted | Ohio Senate | Opposes eliminating the taxable maximum | Opposes eliminating it |
| Sherrod Brown | Ohio Senate | Supports raising the cap | Supports raising it |
| Roy Cooper | North Carolina Senate | Says wealthier Americans should contribute more, without endorsing a specific cap change | General support for higher contributions; no specific cap position |
| Chris Pappas | New Hampshire Senate | Says wealthier Americans should contribute more, without endorsing a specific cap change | General support for higher contributions; no specific cap position |
| Jon Ossoff | Georgia Senate | Focuses on repealing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which he argues accelerated the projected funding deadline | No specific cap proposal reported |
The Payroll-Tax Cap Debate
Raising or eliminating the taxable maximum is the most prominent proposal in the 2026 Senate races. An analysis by economist Jon Schwabish examined 41 candidates across 20 competitive Senate contests and found that 20 supported raising or eliminating the cap.
Thirteen of the 17 Democrats studied supported the change, as did all four independents. By contrast, only three of the 20 Republicans publicly backed it, though those Republicans included Collins, Deaton and Marshall.
Eliminating the cap without increasing benefits for people who pay more in taxes would close about 58% of Social Security’s projected 75-year financing gap, according to Social Security projections cited in campaign coverage. Other estimates vary based on the policy design and assumptions used.
Other Ways Candidates Could Address the Shortfall
Not every proposal involves asking higher earners to pay more. Policymakers could also gradually raise the retirement age, reduce benefits for higher-income retirees, limit maximum household payments or identify new revenue sources.
These alternatives remain politically difficult because each shifts costs toward particular groups of workers, retirees or taxpayers. The Social Security Administration notes that the taxable maximum changes annually with wage growth, which means any cap-based reform would have long-term effects on both revenue and future benefits.
What Voters Should Watch For
Voters comparing candidates should look beyond a promise to “protect Social Security” and ask how the candidate would prevent the projected 2032 shortfall. Useful questions include whether the plan raises revenue, changes benefits, affects higher earners, protects low-income retirees and includes a realistic path through Congress.
The November elections will shape the next stage of the debate, but avoiding automatic cuts will require congressional action after the election. The Peterson Foundation emphasizes that delaying reform makes the eventual adjustment larger and more difficult.
