New Bill Would Allow Some Americans to Opt Back Into Social Security

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Newsweek

Dec 23, 2025 at 03:53 PM EST


A recently proposed law would allow some Americans to opt back into Social Security after originally declining to take part in the social safety net program. Clergy members routinely choose not to take part in Social Security or Medicare programs and have historically been unable to undo this decision even years later. However, a new bill seeks to change this.

Why It Matters

More than 70 million Americans receive Social Security benefits monthly, and this often is a key source of income to help keep them afloat during retirement or as they face disability. Clergy members being able to opt back into the program could provide massive benefits to the group, but could also have ramifications for the impending funding gap the SSA will hit as early as the start of the 2030s.

What To Know

The Clergy Act, originally introduced in January of this year, would establish a two-year window for certain members of the clergy and Christian Science practitioners to revoke their exemption from Social Security and Medicare taxes on ministerial earnings.

Under the current law, those who object to participation in public insurance programs on religious grounds can apply to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for an irrevocable exemption and will not receive Social Security or Medicare benefits in retirement unless they have qualifying credits from other employment.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/new-bill-would-allow-some-americans-to-opt-back-into-social-security-11263006

[Deminpenn]

1. Only if they pay in the total amount of FICA taxes they otherwise

didn't pay in, first.

[mdbl]

2. Very true

It did say they will have to have the qualifying credits which I hope means they have already paid into the system. Otherwise, their credits should start the day they sign back up again.

[rpannier]

3. I found this information about Catholic Priests and Nuns interesting

Per the IRS, they're covered under SECA (self-employed), and not FICA (all clergy are covered by SECA -- per IRS and CFR -- Clergy Financial Resources)
No clergy have to pay into SECA if they get an IRS exemption. Which is probably the group they are talking about in this article.
But, (per IRS) they are not covered under SECA as well.
The most nuns can received from Social Security is 277.75/mth (because of vow of poverty. source CRG Christian Faith Guide). This is because of their vow of poverty -- Not sure how that works. I'm guessing it is about how much they put in through SECA because they make little money themselves, especially if you're in one of those vow of silence abbeys.
Teaching order nuns and Nursing Order nuns make more money and so they pay more into SECA. I guess that means they may make more in social security
Priests are harder to gauge. They, like the nuns (and all Catholic clergy) pay into SECA, unless they get the exemption from the IRS, so they are eligible for Social Security. I'm guessing that if you are a priest that belongs to a 'vow of poverty' religious order, you get 277.75 a month.
If not, they probably qualify for more. Being a cardinal, the amount of money they get is probably fairly decent-to-quite grand; I don't know what a cardinal makes, but I'm guessing it's more $1000 a month.
I could not find any place that said that Catholic clergy take the SECA exemption, so I guess they are expected to pay into it.

If this law is for members of the clergy who took no exemption, and paid into it, but never applied for the social security money they paid into, then it doesn't seem unfair to give them the money they're entitled to under SECA.
If it's the freeloaders, who got the exemption and never paid into it -- too bad for them. Personal responsibility and all that.

The group I worry about, and if it covered them, I'd have no issue with any changes, are those classified as 'Religious Worker.'
They are not paying into SECA "if your employer elected to exclude you." (IRS).
I am curious why their employer gets to elect to exclude them? Why aren't they allowed to make this decision? And, is this explained in detail to them, so they don't get blindsided later in life?

[Igel]

4. No, the text is fairly clear in most places.

You irrevocably waive any right to OASI/social security and that's it. Or was it, if this bill becomes law.

Left out: If you worked 10 years and then joined the clergy and signed the form, you're revoked your eligibility. So the 10 years doesn't matter. (As a teacher in Texas, I'm covered by TRS--but I'm eligible to receive SS when I apply because being covered by a DCP for the last 20 years doesn't affect my previous contributions or eligibility. I signed no irrevocable waiver.)

I said the text is mostly clear. This bit curls around and tries to go all ouroboros as though that would be fattening:

Because Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, any benefits paid would be funded by the clergy members’ own contributions.

Yes, SS is a pay-go system: What's paid goes now for current expenses. That is, a payer's 'own contributions' funds current payments--so unless the claim is that you pay in $200 and get $200 back, what you are paying as FICA is equal to or greater than your current benefits, the sentence is gibberish. Any benefits paid (in the future) will be funded by future payers' contributions, or the benefits will be reduced (most recent estimate I've seen is in the mid-high-teen percents but people like using the scarier older one).

This is not neutral, since most of the time, these days, people pay in less than they get "back". Hence the current reduction in the 'trust fund'. Contrary to claims of 'theft' often bandied about without understanding, by law it had to be placed in special issue treasury bills and is currently gradually, but soon to be quickly, being redeemed, at no increase to the national debt as calculated one way but at an increase in publicly held debt--by which I mean not 'debt held by the federal government' but 'debt held by individuals, investment funds, pensions, and, weirdly, the Federal Reserve'--sure to create some problems with the debt-issuance system (and maybe the federal deficit).

[paleotn]

5. Whether allowing them to opt in strains SS resources or not isn't the issue in my mind...

It's fairness. While I don't want to see anyone reduced to poverty in old age no matter what their persuasion, if they didn't bother to pay in to support prior and existing SS recepients, I don't think current and future workers should support them. Need a compromise on this one. A penalty perhaps for short sightedness, but we won't let you starve.

[moreland01]

6. Did the article say

Why is this happening now? Who is behind this? Or should I ask, how many people are asking for this?

[BumRushDaShow]

8. There are bipartisan versions of this bill in both the House and the Senate

House - Rep. Vince Fong Reintroduces the Clergy Act with Rep. Mike Thompson

Senate - U.S. Senators Maggie Hassan, Katie Britt Reintroduce Clergy Act, Support America’s Faith Leaders

The links describe their thinking. Per the Senators' description, this option has apparently been given several times in the past -

(snip)

Congress has repeatedly given clergy members who have exempted themselves from Social Security coverage the opportunity to opt back into the program, including in 1977, 1986, and most recently in 1999 through the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act.

(snip)

So it sounds like those past "openings" may have been "one-off" opportunities and then expired or sunsetted after some period of time.

[Scruffy1]

7. whatever happened to "Congress shall make no law concerning religion"?

Special rules for special people based on their "beliefs". It's been my experience there is a rather large gap between professed beliefs and actual beliefs. That is, if beliefs actually influence actions.