Just before leaving town in late September, the U.S. Senate passed the Claiming Age Clarity Act by unanimous consent. This quiet and unopposed vote was initiated by Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) at the tail end of the legislative day, capping off a years-long effort to help improve how Americans understand their future Social Security retirement benefits. This bill was included in our 2025 No Brainers list of smart bipartisan bills that benefit taxpayers—a fact that may have helped encourage the bill’s passage. However, the bill’s history is a classic example of how good changes can be made by Congress when members of both parties roll up their sleeves and get to work. This includes the thorniest of issues, like Social Security benefits.
The policy idea behind this bill originated in the research offices at the Social Security Administration (SSA) and its associated university research institutes over a decade ago, sparked by observations by Jason Fichtner and other past agency leaders that beneficiaries were basing their claiming decisions on an incorrect understanding of the Social Security benefit structure. Sometimes, these decisions were partially driven by advice from SSA field office workers to follow what was called the “breakeven analysis.” Researchers found that the use of breakeven analysis in making a decision about claiming benefits frequently led to beneficiaries claiming too early, causing a permanent decrease in monthly benefits that they will receive for the rest of their lives. For most older Americans, there is no more important financial decision than choosing when to claim their Social Security benefits.
In response to these concerns, SSA and a number of external organizations initiated research projects on both the causes and effects of a beneficiary’s claiming decision. Some research pointed to possible psychological factors behind suboptimal claiming decisions, including loss aversion and a high sense of ownership over their future Social Security benefits. Older Americans with lower levels of financial literacy also tend to claim too early. Studies had shown that these individuals were more likely to make decisions on claiming based on wording provided by the SSA itself. In an important research paper published by researchers from SSA and the University of Southern California, it was found that the basic terminology that SSA used to describe different claiming ages helped steer future beneficiaries to claim too early.
Currently, SSA describes the earliest time when an individual can claim benefits—age 62—as the “Early Retirement Age” (EEA), while the “Full Retirement Age” (FRA) referred to the time when someone becomes eligible for unreduced benefits, which ranges between 66 and 67 years old depending on one’s birth year. Those who wait until later than that to claim benefits—up to age 70—earn what SSA calls “Delayed Retirement Credits” (DRCs). Claiming after age 70 does not benefit a future beneficiary, as waiting any longer to claim does not incur higher benefit levels.
This terminology was found to be confusing to people. The term “early” was found to be attractive to future beneficiaries, without highlighting the loss in future benefits by actually claiming early. The term “full” also caused confusion, by implying that those claiming at this level would be receiving the “full” amount of benefits available to them when that is not the case. And the term “delayed” provided negative connotations to those applying for benefits, giving the impression of some sort of penalty for delaying claiming. In response to these concerns, the researchers evaluated alternative terminology using a probability sample of the U.S. population. The study showed a clear preference by respondents toward clearer terminology, as well as a pronounced shift among respondents toward more appropriate “intended claiming ages” when making decisions based on updated terminology. The terminology that seemed to provide the strongest support was also the most direct:
| Early Retirement Age | Minimum Benefit Age |
| Full Retirement Age | Standard Benefit Age |
| Delayed Retirement Credits | Maximum Benefit Age |
This study was among several that showed that simple changes in claiming terminology could help improve understanding of the Social Security claiming decision, and that small changes in wording could help drive Americans toward more optimal claiming decisions. With these clear results, researchers reached out to SSA leadership to see if they would be willing to make internal administrative changes to implement this improved wording. After being met with a negative response, partially related to concerns about specific legal wording regarding these terms in federal law, attention was focused on congressional action. In early 2023, the Bipartisan Policy Center worked with four senators (Bill Cassidy, Tim Kaine, Susan Collins, and Chris Coons) to introduce what was later titled the “Claiming Age Clarity Act.” At the request of Social Security Chief Actuary Stephen Goss, each proposed term was changed to include “monthly” (eg: Minimum Monthly Benefit Age) to further reduce the likelihood of confusion by future beneficiaries.
As with many bills, however, it sometimes takes introduction in more than one legislative session for a good idea to become a law. The Claiming Age Clarity Act did not move forward in the 118th Congress, but found new life in the 119th Congress, when Congressman Lloyd Smucker (R-PA)—along with Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA)—took up the lead on the House version of the bill. Now with support from groups as varied as AARP, BPC Action, and NTU, the bill began to move forward. Members of the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives endured an hour of debate generally unrelated to the actual bill to pass the legislation through the Committee in September 2025, and the bill later passed in the full House of Representatives by voice vote in December 2025.
The bill endured a rougher road in the Senate. Even though Senators Cassidy and Kaine worked to add 12 co-sponsors among their colleagues by April of this year, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) expressed his concerns about the cost to SSA of implementing this bill if passed, and signaled his opposition to unanimous consent (UC) of the bill in the Senate. The cost of implementing this bill, however, is likely to be quite low, as agency materials are updated on regular cycles. After all, only a few words are being changed! After quiet discussions between Wyden and his colleagues on Finance and a continued bipartisan lobbying effort by organizations across the political spectrum, Wyden quietly withdrew his opposition to UC, leading to the bill’s final passage in the Senate in late September.
Many good legislative ideas never see the light of day in Congress. However, sometimes in DC good policy can be created and passed. It helps when a bipartisan group of legislators get behind an idea, but getting a bill through Congress does usually require dogged determination by key members, like Congressman Smucker, to get it done. Even then, however, a bill can get lost in the policy fog of legislative ideas that Congress must face each session. That is where key outside groups can help shine light on a specific issue. This sustained external effort, combined with continued and consistent support by key members of Congress, can help bipartisan bills past the finish line even in contentious times. As passage of the Claiming Age Clarity Act shows, good policy is possible. And its passage will help millions of Americans live better in retirement.