Skip to main content

A $100K Social Security Cap Proposal: What to Know and How to Protect Your Retirement

With Social Security less than seven years from insolvency, at which time it would face a 24% benefit cut, Americans are scrambling to understand what that may mean for their future and retirement.

However, a new paper from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says it has an answer to this uncertainty, with what it calls the “six-figure limit,” or SFL.

The SFL would set a $100,000 cap on the total benefits available to couples retiring at the normal retirement age, or NRA, beginning this year. For people born in 1960 or later, the NRA is 67.

The limit would be adjusted to reflect retirement age and marital status, with a $50,000 limit for single retirees.

[READ: What Is the Social Security COLA for 2027?]

The Proposal: A $100K Social Security Limit

Currently, the highest-income earners may collect up to $100,000 per year in Social Security benefits. “The Six Figure Limit could help restore Social Security solvency in a targeted, timely, progressive, and pro-growth way,” according to the paper.

Jason DeBacker of Open Research Group modeled multiple ways to index the SFL in time:

— When indexed to inflation, it would close one-fifth of Social Security’s solvency gap and three-fifths of its 75th year deficit.

— If fixed in nominal terms and then indexed for average wages, the SFL would eliminate between one-quarter and one-half of the solvency gap and one-quarter to three-fifths of the 75th year deficit.

— It’s projected to save $100 billion to $190 billion over a decade through these options.

The paper asserts that the SFL would generate small savings immediately that would continue to grow over time, improving the solvency of the Social Security trust funds in the process.

How a $100K Social Security Cap Would Impact Retirement Savers

Reactions to the findings are mixed, with some financial experts noting that a six-figure Social Security income is still a benefit reserved for high-income households.

“Practically speaking, very few retirees would be affected. You have to be a top-earning household to even approach six-figure Social Security income, so for a majority of people, this isn’t something that materially changes their plan,” said Mark Stancato, certified financial planner for VIP Wealth Advisors, in an email.

Other experts agree. “Fewer than 2% of beneficiaries hit those levels today, so most clients aren’t affected, even if this passed tomorrow. But I understand the worry,” Jeff Judge, a CFP at Chesapeake Financial Planners, wrote in an email.

“Here’s what I tell worried clients,” Judge adds. “Build as if Social Security delivers less than projected, not zero. That changes how aggressively you contribute to a 401(k) or IRA, how you think about Roth conversions in your 50s and early 60s, and whether you’re stress-testing your plan against a 20% to 24% across-the-board cut (which is what the law requires if the trust fund runs dry with no Congressional action).”

Stancato takes a similar approach. He says: “What I tell clients is simple: Don’t build your retirement around perfect assumptions about Social Security.”

More from U.S. News

2026 Guide: What Happens If You Work While Receiving Social Security?

Social Security in 2026: Experts Weigh in on How the Trump Administration’s Plans Could Reshape Retirement

When You Need to Pay Taxes on Social Security

A $100K Social Security Cap Proposal: What to Know and How to Protect Your Retirement originally appeared on usnews.com

Trump declines to rule out declaring a national security emergency to control the 2026 election

(CNN) — President Donald Trump in a new interview declined to rule out declaring a national security emergency as a means to try to assert more control over the 2026 midterm elections.It’s merely the latest warning sign that Trump could try to mess with the election not just by baselessly claiming voter fraud and challenging the results afterward — as he did in 2020, leading to a violent riot at the US Capitol — but by trying to unilaterally take control before votes are cast.In the interview, Wayne Allyn Root of Real America’s Voice pitched such a scenario to Trump. He suggested it as an alternative, given the Senate has failed to pass Trump’s coveted elections bill, known as the “SAVE America Act.”“If they never get the SAVE America Act done, you have the right to declare a national security emergency for elections,” Root said. He added that “if you declare a national security emergency as the president of the United States, they can’t challenge it. It can only be overturned by a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress. So if you do this in the next month, we will get photo ID, proof of citizenship (for voter registration) and a limit to mail-in ballots.”It’s at this point that Trump cut Root off and coyly suggested such an option was indeed in play.“Let me just say that stranger things have happened, OK?” Trump said. “I’ll leave it at that.”Despite Root’s comments, it’s far from clear such a gambit would even work. And CNN has asked the White House for more detail on what the president meant.Trump often responds to hypotheticals by declining to rule them out — no matter how extreme the proposal might be. So it’s possible to read too much into this.But as CNN’s Jake Tapper has noted, there are plenty of signals that Trump at least aspires to try to exert more control over elections. And these methods often appear transparently geared toward helping Republicans.A major one is the administration’s threat to have the US Postal Service not deliver mail ballots for states that don’t comply with its demand that they hand over their voter lists. This is a request that even many red states have rejected, citing privacy concerns.Democrats are much more likely to use mail ballots, which Trump has baselessly connected to widespread fraud. So curtailing them could greatly help Republicans.(Federal courts have blocked this Trump executive order, and the administration recently appealed to the Supreme Court.)Trump has also gone to great lengths to try to substantiate his still-baseless claims of widespread fraud. That includes the administration seizing 2020 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, and Trump’s recent primetime address about election security that some read as a statement of intent — a pretext for more direct federal involvement in elections, which are run by states.Ty Cobb, who served as White House counsel in Trump’s first term, said he interpreted the speech last month as a “predicate that he needs to declare an emergency.”And Trump has occasionally said things, like he did in the new interview, suggesting he would like to take control of US elections.Back in February, he urged his party to “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” adding: “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”The Washington Post also reported in March that pro-Trump activists were circulating a potential executive order that claimed Chinese interference in the 2020 election gave Trump emergency authorities over the 2026 election. And Trump’s primetime address focused on China, despite the tenuous evidence.Trump’s intense focus on the “SAVE America Act,” which has never appeared to have a chance to pass but Trump has said is vital, could also be read as part of building the case for more drastic action.But whether Trump could take over elections himself, as Root posits, is far from certain.As CNN’s Marshall Cohen and Michael Williams reported in February, the Constitution makes it difficult for Trump to truly “nationalize” elections. Courts have overwhelmingly upheld the principle that states are in charge of elections.Presidents generally have more authority to act unilaterally when national security is involved — hence the significance of invoking China — but some experts are skeptical that Trump’s effort would pass legal muster.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story