Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Grijalva, Adelita S. [D-AZ-7]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 5, 2026
Bottom line
The Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2026 aims to modernize and expand the SSI program to better support low-income seniors and people with disabilities by updating eligibility rules, increasing benefit amounts, and extending coverage to U.S. territories.
What it actually does
This bill significantly updates and expands the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program by increasing general and earned income exclusions, raising resource limits, and linking benefit amounts to the federal poverty line. It also repeals the 'marriage penalty,' excludes certain assets like retirement accounts, clarifies treatment of state tax credits and tribal welfare payments, and extends SSI eligibility to residents of U.S. territories.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a crucial step to modernize the SSI program, which has not seen significant updates to its income and resource limits in decades, leaving many vulnerable individuals in poverty. They contend that updating these limits and linking benefits to the poverty line will provide a vital safety net, reduce administrative burdens, and ensure equitable access to benefits for residents of U.S. territories.
Opponents contend
Critics are likely to raise concerns about the substantial increase in federal spending that would result from expanding eligibility and increasing benefit amounts. They may argue that such broad expansions could create disincentives to work, strain federal budgets, and potentially lead to program integrity challenges, especially with the extension to U.S. territories without clear implementation plans.
The bill is moderately complex due to its numerous amendments to existing Social Security Act provisions, requiring careful reading to grasp the full scope of changes to eligibility and benefit calculations.
Sec. 2(a), (b), (c), (d)
Update in Eligibility and Resource Limits with Inflation Adjustment
This section significantly increases the general income exclusion from $240 to $1,892 and the earned income exclusion from $780 to $6,149. It also raises the resource limit for individuals from $2,250 to $10,000 and for couples from $3,000 to $20,000. All these new limits will be adjusted annually for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers (CPI-E) starting in 2027.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these updates are long overdue, as the current limits have not kept pace with inflation, forcing beneficiaries into deeper poverty or preventing them from saving for emergencies. Raising these limits will allow individuals to maintain a basic standard of living and encourage work without immediate loss of benefits.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that such substantial increases in income and resource limits could significantly expand the program's cost and potentially extend benefits to individuals who are not in the most dire financial need, thereby straining federal resources.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need to provide adequate support for vulnerable populations and account for modern economic realities against concerns about the overall cost to taxpayers and potential disincentives for work or savings at higher income thresholds.
Sec. 3(a), (b), (c)
Update in Benefit Amounts and Repeal of Marriage Penalty
This section significantly changes how SSI benefits are calculated. Starting in 2027, the benefit rate for an individual will be equal to the annual federal poverty guideline for a single individual, and for an eligible couple, it will be twice that rate. This replaces the current fixed rates and effectively repeals the 'marriage penalty' by ensuring couples receive double the individual benefit, rather than a reduced combined amount.
Sec. 4(a), (b)
Exclusion of In-Kind Support and Maintenance from Income
This section amends the Social Security Act to explicitly exclude 'support or maintenance furnished in kind' from being counted as income for SSI eligibility and benefit calculations. This means that non-cash assistance, such as free rent or food provided by others, will no longer reduce an individual's SSI benefits. It also makes conforming amendments to remove related provisions.
Sec. 5
Exclusion of Retirement Accounts from Resources
This section amends the Social Security Act to exclude qualified retirement plans and eligible deferred compensation plans (as defined by the Internal Revenue Code) from being counted as resources when determining SSI eligibility. This means that individuals will no longer be penalized for having retirement savings when applying for or receiving SSI benefits.
Sec. 6
Repeal of SSI Penalty for Disposal of Resources for Less Than Fair Market Value
This section repeals the penalty under SSI for individuals who dispose of resources for less than fair market value. Previously, such actions could lead to a period of ineligibility for SSI benefits. However, the bill retains a requirement for the Commissioner of Social Security to inform applicants about similar Medicaid provisions (section 1917(c)) and to collect information that can be shared with State Medicaid agencies.
Sec. 13(a), (b), (c)
Extension of SSI Program to U.S. Territories
This section extends the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program to Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. Previously, residents of these territories were largely excluded from SSI. The bill makes conforming amendments to the Social Security Act to include these territories in the definition of 'State' for SSI purposes and eliminates previous limitations on federal payments to these territories. It also grants the Commissioner of Social Security waiver authority to adapt the program to the specific needs of each territory.
While repealing the SSI penalty for disposing of resources for less than fair market value, the bill explicitly maintains the requirement for the Commissioner of Social Security to inform SSI applicants about the Medicaid asset transfer penalty (section 1917(c)) and to collect information for State Medicaid agencies.
Sec. 6
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure inter-program coordination, especially between federal benefit programs and state-administered Medicaid. It clarifies that while SSI rules are changing, Medicaid's separate rules regarding asset transfers remain in effect and require data sharing.
Case for: Supporters would argue this ensures that the repeal of the SSI penalty does not inadvertently create loopholes for Medicaid eligibility, maintaining program integrity for state-run health programs while simplifying SSI.
Case against: No specific case against this coordination, as it's a technical detail for program administration. However, some might argue that the continued collection of this information for Medicaid still imposes a burden on SSI applicants, even if it doesn't directly affect their SSI eligibility.
Estimated impact: Ensures continued information flow between SSA and State Medicaid agencies, preventing potential unintended consequences for Medicaid eligibility.
This section eliminates the requirement for dedicated accounts for certain past-due SSI benefits, particularly for disabled or blind children. It also makes conforming amendments to remove related exclusions from income and resources, and clarifies that amounts transferred from these dedicated accounts into other individual accounts as a result of this change will not be counted as income or resources.
Sec. 9(a), (b), (c)
Why it matters:This is a technical legislative change to simplify program administration and reduce burdens on beneficiaries. The original dedicated accounts were complex to manage and often led to funds being inaccessible or misused due to strict rules.
Case for: Proponents argue that dedicated accounts were overly restrictive and complex, often creating hardship for families trying to manage funds for disabled children. Eliminating them simplifies financial management for beneficiaries and reduces administrative overhead for SSA.
Case against: The original intent of dedicated accounts was to ensure large lump-sum past-due benefits were used for specific needs of disabled children. Critics might argue that eliminating them removes a safeguard, potentially leading to misuse of funds or faster depletion of resources, which could then impact future eligibility.
Estimated impact: Simplifies financial management for beneficiaries receiving large past-due benefits, particularly disabled children, and reduces administrative complexity for SSA.
This section modifies the rules for determining marital relationships for SSI purposes. It states that if two individuals are determined to be married under section 216(h)(1) for Title II (Social Security benefits), they shall also be considered married for Title XVI (SSI) purposes. This aligns the definition of marriage across the two titles of the Social Security Act and makes conforming grammatical changes.
Sec. 12(a), (b)
Why it matters:This is a technical harmonization of definitions across different titles of the Social Security Act, aiming for consistency and reducing potential confusion or disparate treatment based on marital status.
Case for: Proponents argue that aligning the definition of marriage across Title II and Title XVI simplifies administration and ensures consistent treatment of beneficiaries. It removes a potential source of confusion and inequity for couples interacting with both programs.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it is an administrative simplification and harmonization. Any broad opposition would likely be tied to the overall expansion of benefits for married couples, rather than the definitional alignment itself.
Estimated impact: Ensures consistent application of marital status rules across Social Security and SSI programs, simplifying administration and potentially impacting a small number of beneficiaries whose marital status was previously treated differently.