1. United States
2. Iowa
3. Letter

I am writing to you because I believe you are a man of your word — and because the words you have already spoken on this subject make you exactly the right person to act. Senator, you wrote this just last June: "Social Security is part of the social fabric of America. The financial safety net provides seniors a guaranteed source of income in retirement. It's a contract that's stood the test of time for nearly a century."

— Sen. Chuck Grassley, grassley.senate.gov, June 13, 2025   And just last month, you published a piece calling the fund's looming insolvency a "wake-up call" — warning that without action, every Social Security recipient will face a 28 percent cut in monthly benefits starting in 2033. You wrote that "kicking the can down the road undermines the public trust." Senator, I agree with every word of that. And that is exactly why I am asking you to act now, while there is a once-in-a-generation opportunity sitting right in front of Congress. What does a 28 percent cut actually mean for an Iowan? The average Social Security disability payment in Iowa today is about $1,537 a month. A 28 percent cut takes $430 of that away. Every single month. That is the difference between paying rent and not. Between keeping the heat on in a January in Iowa and going cold. More than 600,000 Iowans currently receive Social Security benefits. This is not an abstraction. These are your constituents — people who showed up to your 99-county meetings and asked you about this directly. Here is what has changed since you wrote that piece last month, and why the timing matters so much. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 — with conservatives and liberals joining together — that the Trump administration's sweeping tariff program was imposed illegally. The Court found the president never had the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy those tariffs in the first place. The Court of International Trade then ordered the government to refund every dollar collected — not just to companies that sued, but to all 330,000-plus importers who paid in. The total owed is approximately $166 billion, and it is sitting there accruing $22 million in interest every single day while Congress decides what to do next. On April 20th, Customs and Border Protection opened a refund portal. That money is moving. The question is where it goes. The administration is already pursuing replacement tariffs under different legal authority — so the revenue pipeline continues. This is the moment to put a law in place that directs a meaningful portion of that ongoing tariff revenue toward Social Security, before it disappears back into the general fund or funds another round of tax cuts. Here is what I am asking you to do: Sponsor legislation — call it whatever you like — that does three things. First, dedicate a share of ongoing tariff revenue directly to the Social Security Trust Fund, locked in and protected from the general fund. Second, where businesses that received refunds of those illegal tariffs had already passed the costs on to ordinary consumers, direct a portion of that windfall back to Social Security — because it was working people who bore the cost of those illegal tariffs, and they deserve to see some of that money protect their retirement. Third, establish a formal, public accounting of what the federal government has borrowed from Social Security since 1983 — across all administrations, both parties — and a realistic schedule for paying it back. I am not asking you to raise taxes. I am not asking you to cut anything. I am asking you to direct money that the Supreme Court has already ruled was collected illegally — and revenue that tariffs will keep generating — toward the program you yourself called part of the social fabric of America. I know this may not be comfortable within your caucus. I respect that. But you also know that Social Security does not have a party. The Reagan-O'Neill deal in 1983 — which you were in the Senate for — happened because two people put their constituents ahead of their politics. You have said yourself that we need that kind of moment again. I am asking you to be the person who starts it. I would respectfully ask for your written response by May 30, 2026 — not a form letter, but your actual position on whether you will act on this. I intend to share your response, whatever it is, with my neighbors and community, because they deserve to know where their Senator stands. You said kicking the can down the road undermines the public trust. Senator Grassley, the can is right here. The road is short. I am asking you not to kick it. Respectfully,