The PROMISE Act, a bipartisan congressional bill proposed this past July that is supposed to jumpstart an effort to “save Social Security,” is anything but. On the contrary, it’s a bill to rush through half-considered reforms to be considered in the lame-duck session between the mid-term November election and January 1, 2027, when the new Congress convenes. The possibility that significant reforms to Social Security would be set in stone by a Republican-led Congress that might have lost its majority is enough to make any citizen wary of such reasoning and the potential outcome.
Citizens are right to wonder why, after 53 years of not taking any action, Republicans would suddenly want to take up Social Security reform and rush through what will surely be a complex proposal in the next 30-60 days.
Sen. Bernie Sanders brought this issue to the attention of fellow Democrats in the Senate in an August letter in which he explained the proposal. The Promise Act, Sanders wrote, “would direct four unelected members of the Social Security Advisory board to produce, in little more than a month, a proposal to make Social Security solvent for the next 50 years — with virtually no transparency, no meaningful public input and no accountability. If the advisory board reaches an agreement, Congress would be required to vote on their proposal during the lame-duck session after the November election when Republicans still control the Senate and the House.
“If the (Advisory) Board cannot reach an agreement,” Sanders continued, “the PROMISE Act would allow any member of congress to force a vote on their own Social Security proposal under expedited procedures without the opportunity to amend it or seek a compromise — also during a lame-duck session.
“In other words, Members of Congress who have been defeated at the polls or who have chosen to retire could determine the future of Social Security for the next half century…. In my view, the Democratic Caucus must strongly oppose the PROMISE Act—or any legislation that fast-tracks fundamental changes to Social Security through an unelected commission.”
Sanders noted that the AARP, the nation’s largest senior organization in the country, also objects to the proposed legislation. The AARP wrote in a July 21, 2026 letter: “We strongly object to fast-tracking Social Security changes through Congress, as (the PROMISE Act) would do. Strengthening Social Security should happen through regular order, in full public view, with openness and transparency… If regular order is the gold standard for routine legislative matters, it certainly should be the standard for something as important as Social Security reform.”
We agree Congress needs to tackle Social Security reform head-on in the upcoming session until it hammers out a bipartisan solution. But the idea of during so in a rushed, underhanded manner as described in the PROMISE Act is exactly why so many in Congress should be voted out of office. We need congressional leaders willing to tackle the hard issues facing the country with openness, hard work, a willingness to compromise and then the moxie to explain and champion a bipartisan solution—which will require sacrifices from every sector—to the public to get their buy-in.
We should agree at the start that any successful reform will require a thorough process and extensive political discussion. If we do it well, it also has the potential to restore a smidgeon of trust in politics and close the perceived gap between political parties. That’s the gold standard we should seek—and it’s a low bar at that.
Angelo Lynn
