5 Ways AARP Is Fighting for Social Security Right Now

2. Opposing a special commission to address Social Security solvency

Sweeney says AARP has already laid out a “red line” on the solvency issue, telling members of Congress it will fight any effort to delegate the debate over Social Security’s future to an independent commission or special committee.

That’s what Congress did in the early 1980s, the last time the trust funds neared depletion, convening the National Commission on Social Security Reform (informally known as the Greenspan Commission after its chair, economist Alan Greenspan) to make recommendations on securing the program’s finances.

In its deliberations, conducted in private, the commission “essentially deadlocked” over how to fully address the funding shortfall, according to an account from Robert Ball, a member of the panel and a former head of the SSA. It took traditional negotiations between congressional party leaders to hammer out the 1983 legislation that kept Social Security solvent for decades.

“The last thing anyone needs is another committee,” Sweeney says. “The fact is, Congress already has committees and subcommittees with the power and expertise to address Social Security.”

He worries that those calling for a special commission are looking to bypass the normal legislative process.

“They want to cut Social Security behind closed doors, without public comment or debate, and to do it so fast the public can’t mobilize and respond,” Sweeney says.

3. No cuts, no privatization

Another red line for AARP: any cuts to Social Security. That would be financially crushing for a huge swath of older Americans.

About 40 percent of Social Security beneficiaries age 65 and older derive at least half of their income from Social Security, according to the SSA, and almost 15 percent rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.

“As prices on everything continue to go up, what’s at stake is the ability to live independently, pay your bills, put a roof over your head and put food on the table,” Sweeney says. “We know that probably isn’t the experience most members of Congress live, so our job is to make sure they understand how devastating even small cuts to Social Security would be for most [older] Americans.”

Although it included some revenue increases, the 1983 legislative compromise largely relied on benefit cuts, notably a gradual increase in Social Security’s full retirement age (FRA) from 65 to 67. FRA is the age when you are entitled to 100 percent of the amount determined by your lifetime earnings; raising the FRA means lower benefits at any given claiming age.  

AARP opposes increasing the retirement age again, as well as proposals to cap payments or trim the annual cost-of-living adjustments.

Sweeney says AARP will also be ready to swat down any talk of privatizing Social Security by diverting the payroll taxes that fund the program into personal retirement accounts invested in the stock market. That’s something policymakers seriously considered in the mid-2000s but ultimately rejected amid fierce public pushback.

AARP argued then — and reiterated recently — that such a move would put most Americans’ only form of guaranteed, inflation-adjusted retirement income at risk, tethering payments to the ups and downs of the stock market.  

4. Demanding better customer service from Social Security 

​The SSA has struggled for years to address significant challenges with customer service, including lengthy waits to get help by phone or secure appointments at local Social Security offices and extended delays in processing disability applications. In recent years, AARP has amplified its demands that the agency better serve those who rely on it.

For years, AARP has supported increasing the SSA’s customer service budget to support better service to older Americans. This year, the SSA received a modest increase of $50 million for fiscal year 2026, which runs through Sept. 30. The measure, which became law in February, included other conditions related to customer service, such as calling on the SSA to avoid closing field offices or reducing other direct-service operations and to make monthly reports to Congress on customers’ wait times for office appointments.

AARP will continue to advocate for “robust, sustained funding” to improve customer service going forward, as we said in the March statement to the Senate Budget Committee.

AARP has also called on the SSA to ensure that Americans’ private data is protected following the disclosure earlier this year that a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employee assigned to the agency signed an agreement last year to share sensitive Social Security data with an outside political advocacy group. (The SSA says it has not seen evidence that SSA data was shared with the group.)

“SSA is entrusted with the sensitive data of hundreds of millions of Americans, and protecting that data from illegal use must be a top priority,” AARP Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer Nancy LeaMond said after the SSA disclosed the incident in a January court filing. “Anyone involved must be held accountable, and the Social Security Administration must take immediate steps to ensure nothing like this can happen again.”

5. Helping people better understand their payment options

AARP has endorsed bipartisan legislation that it says could help older Americans make better decisions about when to claim their retirement. The difference between claiming at 62 and claiming at 70 is large — up to a 77 percent increase in monthly payments — yet many people do not fully understand how their claiming age affects how much they will receive for the rest of their lives.

The bill, called the Claiming Age Clarity Act, would tweak the terms the SSA uses on its website and in other communications to help prospective beneficiaries better understand the pros and cons of claiming Social Security at various ages.

For example, the SSA currently labels 62, the minimum age to claim retirement payments, “early eligibility age.” Claiming Social Security at 62 results in monthly payments up to 30 percent lower than what you’d get by waiting until full retirement age, which is 67 for those born in 1960 and later.

The AARP-backed bill would require the SSA to call 62 the “minimum monthly benefit age” to more clearly convey the financial impact.

Similarly, “full retirement age” would become the “standard monthly benefit age,” and age 70, when you can claim your largest possible monthly payment, would be labeled “maximum monthly benefit age.” Currently, the SSA describes the post-FRA payment bump as “delayed retirement credits.”

The bill’s sponsors say the current terms are confusing and may contribute to older Americans making poor financial decisions. The House passed the Claiming Age Clarity Act in December by voice vote, and it’s now pending in the Senate.

“Ensuring that everyone understands what different claiming ages mean for their monthly Social Security will help empower people to make the best financial decisions for themselves and their families,” LeaMond says.