Trump says 'no tax on Social Security' with reconciliation bill. That's not true for everyone.

As the Senate moved closer to approving President Donald Trump’s signature tax-and-spending legislation, Trump promoted campaign promises he said would be fulfilled by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s passage.

During a June 29 appearance on Fox News’ "Sunday Morning Futures," Trump said the bill has "no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime." 

Trump made a similar remark in a June 26 White House speech, and the White House has made similar statements on social media.

The bill, in its latest form, would fulfill Trump’s campaign promises to end taxation of tips and overtime. But it wouldn’t end taxation of Social Security benefits.

Trump’s June 29 statement muddies the waters about what he promised and what the bill would deliver.

Under current law, Americans over 65 years old are already eligible for tax deductions — $2,000 if married or $1,600 if unmarried and not a surviving spouse. The House and Senate proposals would boost those amounts.

The House-approved version provides an additional $4,000 tax deduction for people ages 65 and older, and the Senate version would give an additional $6,000 tax deduction to people aged 65 and older. Neither deduction represents an end to tax on Social Security, and both versions would exclude Social Security beneficiaries who are 62 to 64, and dependents, deceased workers’ survivors and disabled workers who have not turned 65.

The White House has described the tax break differently than Trump, saying in a June 29 press release that the new tax deduction, "combined with other deductions, ensures the average Social Security beneficiary will pay zero taxes on Social Security." It called it a "myth"  that the bill "doesn’t actually end taxes on Social Security," saying the "fact" is the bill "delivers historic tax relief to seniors."

The White House did not respond to an inquiry for this article. 

Trump promised no tax on Social Security, but the proposed deductions don’t cover all recipients

Taxation of Social Security benefits began with 1983 legislation that was designed to help shore up Social Security’s finances. The taxes are calculated based on a complicated formula that involves recipients’ overall income, their tax-exempt interest income and half of their Social Security benefits. The revenues from taxing Social Security benefits are set aside for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

Trump said during the 2024 campaign that "seniors should not pay tax on Social Security," but the bill doesn’t deliver that. If either the House or Senate version of the bill is signed into law, some Social Security recipients would still pay income tax on their benefits. 

The reason lawmakers drafting the bill did not repeal all taxation of Social Security benefits has to do with Senate procedural quirks. To pass the bill with a simple majority vote, provisions need to survive a parliamentary vetting process known as the "Byrd bath," named for the late Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. This process bars directly cutting Social Security.

So the House and Senate crafted workarounds that sought to achieve something as close as possible to Trump’s promise.

Under the legislative workarounds, there is significant overlap between people who would benefit from the tax break and people who receive Social Security payments. But not everyone would benefit, and the break isn’t permanent, lasting through 2028.

One group that would not receive the tax break is people who are direct Social Security beneficiaries younger than 65. In December 2024, federal data shows, about 5% of retired Social Security beneficiaries were ages 62 to 64.

Other groups that would not get the deduction are retired workers’ dependents, deceased workers’ survivors, and disabled workers and their dependents who are not yet 65. 

Finally, wealthier taxpayers would not benefit. The tax break would phase out at higher income levels — at $175,000 for single filers and $250,000 for joint filers, according to the Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank.

How much do Trump’s promise and the bill’s provisions overlap?

More than half of current Social Security beneficiaries pay some tax on their benefits, according to the Social Security Administration. How would that change under the House and Senate proposals, and how would that compare with simply ending Social Security taxation altogether, as Trump campaigned on?

The closest answer we could find came in May from a senior official with the Joint Committee on Taxation, the bipartisan body of Congress that analyzes the proposed tax legislation’s effect. 

Thomas A. Barthold, the joint committee’s chief of staff, said if existing law remains, about 27 million tax returns would include some amount of income tax owed on Social Security benefits in 2026. 

Featured Fact-check

X posts

stated on June 12, 2025 in an image

Says Karoline Leavitt said, “America cannot function if President Trump has to deal with co-equal branches of government having the ability to check his power.”

If the new deductions were enacted, that number would fall to 24 million, he said. So 24 million Americans would still be paying some tax on their Social Security benefits.

The Tax Foundation offered a different approach, looking at the scope of the tax impact for different income groups under three scenarios: a full Social Security tax repeal, enactment of the House version and enactment of the Senate version.

The Tax Foundation found that the House and Senate versions produced less in tax savings overall and mostly benefited middle class earners. Notably, households in the 20% to 60% of the income spectrum — roughly those earning between $17,735 and $73,905 — would see bigger tax benefits from either the House or the Senate version than they would have if Social Security taxes were lifted entirely.

People earning more than $73,905 would see significantly lower gains under both chambers’ proposals than if Social Security taxes were ended entirely.

Households earning below $17,735, would see little change under any of these three policies, because those households are less likely to owe any Social Security tax.

Garrett Watson, the Tax Foundation’s policy analysis director, said a major reason why the House and Senate versions are more progressive than eliminating Social Security taxes is the inclusion of the cap on high earners. 

Our ruling

Trump said his One Big Beautiful Bill will deliver on the campaign promise of "no tax on Social Security."

Both the House and Senate have included language in their versions of Trump’s bill that would reduce taxes for a wide swath of Social Security beneficiaries. However, not all Social Security recipients would benefit from these provisions.

Those who would not benefit include Social Security beneficiaries who are 62 to 64 years old; retired workers’ dependents; deceased workers’ survivors; disabled workers and their dependents who are not yet 65; and wealthier taxpayers, who would be affected by the bill’s income caps.

A Joint Committee on Taxation official said if the House version were enacted, 24 million Americans would still pay tax on their Social Security benefits.

There is an element of truth, in that the policy would reduce some taxes paid by Social Security recipients, and many middle-income Americans would fare better with the congressional versions than with Trump’s original plan. But the congressional provisions do not eliminate Social Security taxes. 

We rate the statement Mostly False.