Fact Check: Did Republicans Just Introduce a Bill to Reduce Social Security?

Republicans and Democrats have fiercely debated how best to address Social Security's looming funding crisis.

While Americans have been paying into the system for years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) is expected to run out of money to make full payments as early as 2035 if nothing changes due to the bankruptcy crisis.

However, another problem lies in the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO). These two rules reduce Social Security payments for millions of Americans who worked as public servants, former police officers, teachers and nurses. Part of their payments will be withdrawn because they also receive pensions.

The U.S. House of Representatives should pass a bill, the Social Security Fairness Act, that would repeal WEP and GPO. However, in an unusual move, Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, received unanimous approval to advance the bill on Tuesday.

To pass it, lawmakers would have to vote under the layoff provisions, or a new bill could be introduced with similar policies for Social Security recipients currently affected by WEP and GPO.

The claim

Several users of the social media platform

Others claimed Republicans were trying to strip Social Security benefits from those receiving retirement or disability benefits.

“It's already begun, Republicans in the House of Representatives introduced a bill on Election Day to cut Social Security payments for Americans who receive a pension or disability benefit from an employer. MAGA has doomed us all,” X user @TheRickyDavila wrote on Thursday.

The facts

These reports are false.

The bipartisan bill was originally introduced last January by House Speakers Garret Graves, a Republican from Louisiana, and Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat from Virginia, and attracted more than 300 cosponsors, both Republicans and Democrats.

The bill in question sought to expand, not reduce, Social Security benefits for retirees. And while some Republicans have introduced the bill, they have not proposed a new bill that would deprive Americans of any payments.

By submitting the bill, they have simply retained the current rules regarding WEP and GPO.

Newsweek contacted Graves, Spanberger, and House Speaker Mike Johnson for comment via email.

If passed, the Social Security Fairness Act would have cost an estimated $196 billion over ten years.

While it's unclear why certain Republicans blocked the bill, which had broad bipartisan support, the timing may suggest waiting to pass a Social Security bill until they have a majority.

“I believe Republicans blocked this bill to delay any changes until they reach a majority in the House or Senate,” Kevin Thompson, a financial expert and founder and CEO of 9i Capital Group, said previously Newsweek. “While they cited the cost of the package as a reason, the timing suggests a possible strategic move to maintain control.”

Alex Beene, a financial literacy lecturer at the University of Tennessee at Martin, called the bill's presentation “puzzling” because the proposal is popular and bipartisan in nature.

“The bill in question extended Social Security benefits to a small group that has historically been excluded due to provisions combining those benefits with additional pensions of workers in certain areas,” Beene previously said Newsweek. “The hope is that the decision to put it on hold for now will lead to it being offered in a different form in the future. The benefits the recipients would receive would be of great help to them in the bloated economic times we are currently facing.”

The verdict

INCORRECT.

While some claimed that Republicans had introduced a bill to reduce Social Security benefits for retirees, many retirees are already receiving lower monthly benefits.

Some Republicans blocked a vote on a bill that would have eliminated WEP and GPO, which currently lowers payments for millions of Social Security recipients. However, the bill, the Social Security Fairness Act, received bipartisan support and was signed by over 300 lawmakers, including many Republicans.

FACT CHECK FROM Newsweek