Social Security is becoming a significant issue in several closely watched US Senate races, with voters showing strong interest in how candidates would address the programme’s long-term finances. A new survey from the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation found that 81% of respondents would be more likely to support a candidate who has a plan to prevent future Social Security benefit cuts.
The survey included 2,500 registered voters in Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas. Conducted from August 20 to August 27, 2026, the poll examined voter attitudes toward Social Security and possible congressional action. The findings indicate that many respondents want lawmakers to discuss the programme’s financial challenges rather than postpone the issue.
Concern
Social Security supports millions of Americans through retirement, disability and survivor benefits. For many households, these monthly payments form an important part of their income, making the programme’s future finances a significant concern.
The programme faces a long-term gap between the money it collects and the benefits scheduled under current law. According to the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report cited in the survey material, the programme’s primary retirement trust fund is projected to be depleted in 2032.
That does not mean Social Security would stop paying benefits altogether. Instead, without changes to the law, payments would be limited to the revenue available to the programme.
The Peterson Foundation survey describes the resulting reduction as an immediate 22% cut in benefits. The precise impact would depend on future legislation, economic conditions and other factors, but the projection illustrates why the trust fund issue has become an important part of the policy discussion.
Survey
The survey found that 81% of voters said they would be more likely to support a candidate who has a plan to prevent automatic Social Security benefit reductions.
Other responses also pointed to considerable interest in congressional action. About 77% of respondents agreed that lawmakers who promise not to touch Social Security are making the underlying problem worse and that delaying action makes the challenge harder to address.
Meanwhile, 85% said fixing Social Security is more important than ever, while 88% said current lawmakers should talk more about the programme’s financial problems.
The survey also reported that 91% of respondents supported Social Security reforms. The foundation said majorities across party lines supported potential reforms.
These figures describe the views of the voters surveyed. They do not necessarily indicate how voters would respond to any particular Social Security proposal, since different reforms can involve different changes to taxes, benefits, eligibility rules or other programme features.
Races
The five states included in the survey are Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas. The Peterson Foundation identified these states as having competitive Senate races.
The Senate has an important role in federal legislation, including any changes Congress might consider for Social Security. That makes candidates’ stated positions relevant to voters evaluating the programme’s future.
For senators elected in 2026, the timing of the projected 2032 trust fund depletion also puts the issue within the potential period of their six-year terms. As a result, Social Security could remain part of congressional discussions during the next several years.
Still, the survey measures voter attitudes rather than determining how individual Senate candidates will approach the programme. Candidates can differ substantially in the details of their proposals even when they agree that Social Security’s finances require attention.
Reform
Social Security reform can involve several policy choices. Lawmakers could consider changes affecting revenues, benefits, eligibility or other elements of the programme. Each approach can have different effects on workers, retirees, people with disabilities and survivors.
That distinction matters because broad support for “reform” does not automatically translate into support for a specific proposal. A voter who wants to prevent benefit cuts may have different views about tax increases, benefit formulas or retirement-age changes than another voter with the same goal.
The survey therefore provides a snapshot of public attitudes toward the need for action rather than a detailed mandate for one particular policy.
Method
The survey was conducted online by Global Strategy Group and North Star Opinion Research. Global Strategy Group is described in the supplied material as a Democratic polling firm, while North Star Opinion Research is described as a Republican polling firm.
A total of 2,500 registered voters participated, with 500 respondents from each of the five states.
| State | Voters surveyed |
|---|---|
| Georgia | 500 |
| Michigan | 500 |
| North Carolina | 500 |
| Ohio | 500 |
| Texas | 500 |
| Total | 2,500 |
The survey ran from August 20 through August 27, 2026, and reported a margin of error of +/-4.4 percentage points.
These methodological details are important when interpreting the findings. A survey reflects the people and questions included in its sample, and the reported margin of error does not account for every possible source of survey uncertainty.
Outlook
The survey puts Social Security among the issues that voters in these five Senate battleground states are paying attention to. Its findings indicate that many respondents want candidates and lawmakers to address the programme’s projected financial shortfall rather than leave the issue unresolved.
For voters, the distinction between acknowledging the problem and proposing a specific solution may become increasingly important. Social Security’s future depends on congressional decisions, while the effects of those decisions could extend across generations of workers and beneficiaries.
The survey does not establish which policy Congress will ultimately pursue or how individual elections will be decided. It does, however, show that among the voters surveyed, Social Security financing is an issue many believe lawmakers should discuss more directly as the 2032 trust fund depletion projection approaches.
