Yes, Republicans Should Support Privatizing Social Security—in 2090

The newborn investment accounts in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) represent a golden opportunity to one day replace Social Security with a stable, functional retirement system that allows everyone in society to become equal stakeholders.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized this point at a Breitbart event in Washington, D.C., describing the accounts as a “backdoor for privatizing” Social Security. This sparked a firestorm of criticism from Democrats and the media. Rather than double down on what should be standard Republican policy, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed Bessent meant that these accounts will supplement, not replace, Social Security.

In essence, she claimed the Trump administration is growing the nanny state—not making it function more responsibly by putting it on a path to reduction. This marks a troubling trend among the Trump administration’s communications teams to downplay or deny Trump’s winning, conservative policies out of an obvious fear of the media’s firepower.  

But that’s not what Bessent was saying, as anyone who listens to his speech can deduce.

Instead of running away from big ideas to douse media and Democrat criticism, Republicans should embrace long-term solutions to problems like Social Security.

Bessent’s remarks point to a possible long-term strategy that guarantees a retirement plan for Americans without continuing to send the country into a debt spiral. Although it’s necessary to focus on winning the next election, Republicans should also focus on the next four generations. Winning the next election will not do anything to course-correct the country if Republicans can’t implement ideas that would change the course of the country.

(READ MORE: Here Are Ten Great Aspects of Trump's Big Beautiful Bill)

The Newborn Investment Accounts Are a Real Game Changer

The newborn investment accounts, known colloquially as the “Trump accounts,” are available to babies born after Jan. 1, 2025 and track a stock index with equity investments in mostly American companies. The accounts will receive $1,000 from the government. Additionally, individuals may invest up to $5,000 per year, and the parents’ employers may invest up to $2,500 per year—all tax-free and adjusted for inflation.

But this presents a bigger opportunity than starting adulthood with a hand up. Congress can modify this before it expires on Dec. 31, 2028, to increase the amount of government investment if these individuals choose to keep the accounts open in adulthood and turn them into retirement accounts.

Congress could tweak this in many ways to not only supplement Social Security but eventually eliminate it entirely. For instance, workers after 2043—the year babies born in 2025 will turn 18—could:

• opt to keep the portion of payroll taxes they would normally pay,
• direct their employer’s share into their retirement accounts while keeping their tax share in Social Security, or
• putting both their share and their employer’s share into this retirement account.

In each scenario, they would voluntarily give up their Social Security benefits in proportion to what they choose to opt out of paying in payroll taxes. In each scenario, the government—unlike with Social Security—would not be allowed to touch the money in their retirement accounts.

Why Americans Need to Rethink Social Security for Their Great-Grandchildren

Social Security, while a cornerstone of American retirement for decades, faces well-documented challenges. The Social Security Administration projects that the trust fund will be depleted by 2034, a year earlier than previously expected. Without significant reforms, after that point, the government will only be able to pay 80 percent of Social Security benefits without raising payroll taxes like it did when faced with a similar funding shortfall in the 1980s.

In 2024, the U.S. government spent $1.5 trillion on Social Security, which accounted for 22.4 percent of the budget. The Congressional Budget Office predicts the national debt will grow to 156 percent of GDP in 2055—or $138 trillion—driven by spending over a quarter of GDP on the federal government. It is irresponsible to hand that to future generations.

Younger generations are understandably skeptical of relying on a system that may not deliver the promised benefits by the time they retire. For today’s newborns, who will reach retirement age in the 2080s, the uncertainty is even more pronounced. Republicans, long champions of individual responsibility and market solutions, have a unique opportunity to address this looming crisis by building on the Trump accounts as a blueprint for a new retirement paradigm. 

But the GOP can’t do this if it keeps these ideas in posh conferences for conservative media and runs away from them when questioned about it by the mainstream media.

A More Responsible System

The core idea is simple—transition from a mandatory, government-run Social Security system to a framework where personal investment accounts, seeded with government contributions, become the primary vehicle for retirement savings. By starting with today’s newborns, Republicans can craft a gradual, decades-long plan that gives future generations the option to phase out Social Security if they choose. This approach avoids abrupt disruptions for current retirees or those nearing retirement, while offering an alternative for future generations that aligns with conservative principles.

No American alive today will ever see the national debt paid off in their lifetime. But we can balance the budget and put the government on a responsible path before the end of this century. This requires starting the hard work now to find ways to cut non-discretionary spending.

This does not mean anyone in the workforce today would have their retirement benefits slashed. It does, however, mean having honest conversations with today’s workers on ways to build a more secure, responsible public-private retirement system for their grandchildren.

The OBBB’s newborn investment accounts don’t remove the federal government from the picture, and no “privatization” option of Social Security ever will. They do, however, tie future benefits to investments rather than the general fund that loses value through inflation. Republicans should not shy away from having hard conversations about securing a prosperous retirement for future generations out of fear that Democrats and the media will damage their brand with strawman arguments and fear tactics. Planning for Americans’ retirement in the 2080s and 2090s is a good place to start.

(READ MORE: Make Food Great Again by Making Farmers Hire American Again)