Democrats rode a blue wave of Senate pickups on Tuesday, flipping seven seats in red states and winning control of the chamber, while Republicans will also seat some fresh faces. Together, the 17 newcomers from both parties will join the next Congress to confront one of Washington's most persistently dodged problems: how to keep Social Security paying full benefits. The program sends monthly payments to tens of millions of retirees, disabled workers, and surviving family members, which is why any shortfall gets treated as a pocketbook issue rather than a budget abstraction.

The program's trust fund is projected to run dry in late 2032. After that, payroll tax revenue would cover only about 78% of scheduled benefits, forcing an automatic cut of roughly 22% unless Congress acts.

Senators elected to full terms this week will serve until January 2033, so the funding deadline falls squarely on their watch. The trustees will re-check that clock in their annual reports, giving the new Congress a recurring measure of how much time is left. And because Social Security cannot be changed through budget reconciliation, a fix will likely need 60 votes and support from both parties.

Nearly all of the newcomers addressed Social Security during their campaigns. As Fortune previously reported, the issue is not quite the political "third rail" it used to be—but "protecting" the program can mean very different things. Their answers split into two broad camps with opposite effects on the program's ledger: lifting or raising the payroll tax cap brings new revenue in, while ending taxes on benefits takes revenue out unless it is replaced. Here is what each incoming senator has actually said they would do.

Juliana Stratton, D-Illinois — Stratton said she would eliminate the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax, according to The Times Weekly. Social Security payroll taxes currently apply only to the first $184,500 of a worker's yearly earnings. Eliminating that cap starting in 2027, without increasing benefits for the additional earnings taxed, would close an estimated 58% of Social Security's projected 75-year funding shortfall, according to the Social Security Administration's actuaries.

Josh Turek, D-Iowa — Turek said he would lift the $184,500 cap and opposes raising the age for full benefits.

Adam Hamilton, D-Kansas — Hamilton would raise the earnings cap rather than eliminate it, arguing that someone earning $1 million should not pay the same Social Security tax as someone earning $184,500. He did not take a firm position on the retirement age.

Andy Barr, R-Kentucky — Barr opposed changes for people who are already retired and called for bipartisan reforms aimed at younger generations. He did not name specific tax or benefit changes but said reforms should encourage more private and employer-sponsored retirement savings.

Troy Jackson, D-Maine — In a September Bangor Daily News op-ed, Jackson called for scrapping the payroll tax cap and increasing benefits, while ruling out privatization and raising the retirement age.

Abdul El-Sayed, D-Michigan — In his final debate, El-Sayed said the payroll tax cap should be removed and that Social Security benefits should not be taxed. Eliminating taxes on benefits without replacing the revenue would cost Social Security about $1 trillion over 10 years, plus an additional $700 billion for Medicare, according to a July analysis published by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Peggy Flanagan, D-Minnesota — Flanagan backs Sen. Bernie Sanders' Social Security Expansion Act, Bloomberg Government reported. The bill would apply payroll taxes to wages above $250,000, eventually eliminate the cap, and raise benefits. Her campaign site also supports eliminating taxes on benefits.

Kurt Alme, R-Montana — Alme says savings from cutting waste, fraud, and abuse elsewhere in government should go toward Social Security. In an October debate, he pointed to his experience as Montana's budget director but did not propose changes to the cap or the benefit formula.

Chris Pappas, D-New Hampshire — Pappas opposes raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, and privatization. His campaign highlighted his cosponsorship of the Social Security Fairness Act, the 2025 law that boosted benefits for public workers with outside pensions.

Roy Cooper, D-North Carolina — Cooper made the 2032 deadline a staple of his stump speech. He opposes benefit cuts and says wealthy Americans should contribute more to the program, but has not specified how.

Annie Andrews, D-South Carolina — Andrews supports eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits but has not yet laid out a plan to close the funding gap.

James Talarico, D-Texas — Talarico wants to eliminate the payroll tax cap for people earning over $400,000, Texas Public Radio reported.

Barry Moore, R-Alabama — Moore's Senate campaign website backed cutting taxes on Social Security benefits. He was also an original cosponsor of the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act, introduced in February 2025. The bill would remove Social Security benefits from federal taxable income and transfer general funds to replace the revenue the trust funds would lose.

Harriet Hageman, R-Wyoming — Asked how to prevent Social Security cuts during an August 2026 primary debate, Hageman said growing the economy, creating jobs, and getting more people into the workforce would help shore up the program. Like Moore, Hageman was an original cosponsor of the 2025 bill to end federal income taxes on benefits.

Bills matching both camps already exist—the Social Security Expansion Act and the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act are sitting templates—but none can clear the 60-vote bar on party lines alone. An early signal to watch is whether senators from these opposite camps begin pairing their ideas into bipartisan packages when the new Congress convenes in January.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.