We Can't Wait Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Miller, Carol D. [R-WV-1]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 31, 2026
Bottom line
This bill provides an option for disabled individuals to receive Social Security Disability Insurance benefits earlier, at the cost of a permanently reduced monthly payment, while aiming to maintain the long-term solvency of the trust fund.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Social Security Act to allow disabled individuals to elect to receive disability insurance benefits during their standard 5-month waiting period. Making this election would result in a permanently reduced benefit amount, initially set at 94.25% of the full benefit, with future adjustments based on actuarial calculations to maintain neutrality for the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the current 5-month waiting period for disability benefits creates significant financial hardship for individuals who are unable to work due to severe disabilities, often leading to homelessness, medical debt, and other crises. This bill provides a crucial option for immediate relief, even if it means a slightly lower long-term benefit, ensuring that vulnerable individuals can access support when they need it most.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that allowing early access to benefits, even with a reduction, could increase the strain on the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, potentially accelerating its depletion or requiring larger benefit reductions in the future. They may also argue that the current waiting period serves as a necessary safeguard to ensure genuine disability and prevent premature claims, and that this change could open the door to increased administrative complexity and potential for fraud.
The bill is concise and directly addresses a specific amendment to existing law, making it relatively accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions.
Section 2(a)(1) and (3) of the bill, amending Section 223(a) of the Social Security Act
Permitting Election of Early Disability Insurance Benefits
This provision allows disabled individuals, before reaching early retirement age, to choose to start receiving their disability insurance benefits during the standard 5-month waiting period. This election can be made at various stages of the application process or within specific periods after a favorable decision, and it can also be revoked during certain periods.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provides a critical lifeline to disabled individuals who face severe financial distress during the waiting period, often losing homes or going without essential medical care. It offers a choice to those most in need.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that this adds complexity to the benefit system and could lead to individuals making choices they later regret, or that it could be difficult for the SSA to implement without errors.
Tradeoffs
Balances the immediate financial needs of disabled individuals against the administrative complexity and potential for individuals to make irreversible decisions about their benefit amounts.
Section 2(a)(3)(B) and (C) of the bill, amending Section 223(a) of the Social Security Act
Calculation of Reduced Early Benefits
If an individual elects to receive benefits during the waiting period, their monthly disability insurance benefit will be permanently reduced. Initially, this reduction sets the benefit at 94.25% of the amount they would have received without the election. This reduced percentage is fixed for the entire period of eligibility and is not subject to recalculations.
Section 2(a)(3)(D) of the bill, amending Section 223(a) of the Social Security Act
Actuarial Review and Congressional Reporting
This provision mandates that the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration calculate a percentage every five years (after an initial 36-month period) to ensure that the fiscal impact of allowing early benefit elections remains actuarially neutral over a 75-year period for the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund. The Commissioner may certify this percentage if it's 91% or greater. If not certified, the Chief Actuary must report to Congress with recommendations for legislative or administrative actions to achieve neutrality.
Section 2(a)(3)(F) and (G), and Section 2(c) of the bill
Transparency and Application Process Modernization
The bill requires the Commissioner of Social Security to make information about electing early benefits publicly available on a website, including a calculator for individuals to understand the impact on their benefits. It also mandates updating application forms within 180 days of enactment to include the option for applicants to elect or revoke early benefits.
The Commissioner of Social Security is only required to certify the actuarially calculated percentage if it is "greater than or equal to 91 percent." If the percentage is less than 91 percent, the Commissioner "may elect not to certify" it, which then triggers a report to Congress with recommendations for achieving actuarial neutrality.
Section 2(a)(3)(D)(ii)(I)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for setting specific operational triggers within technical sections. It's a detail necessary for the mechanism to function.
Case for: Supporters would argue this threshold provides a necessary safeguard, ensuring that the benefit reduction percentage doesn't fall too low, which could undermine the purpose of providing meaningful early benefits. It allows for a pause and re-evaluation if the actuarial models suggest a more drastic reduction is needed.
Case against: Critics might argue that setting an arbitrary floor like 91% could prevent the system from achieving true actuarial neutrality if the actual required percentage falls below this. It could force Congress to intervene or leave the trust fund exposed if the Commissioner chooses not to certify a lower, but actuarially sound, percentage.
Estimated impact: This threshold could significantly influence future benefit reduction percentages for individuals electing early benefits, potentially leading to legislative action if the actuarial calculations consistently fall below 91%.