SB 3924, the “We Can’t Wait Act of 2026,” would amend Title II of the Social Security Act to let certain disabled workers elect to begin receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments during the standard waiting period before benefits normally start. The bill applies only to individuals who have not reached early retirement age and allows the election to be made by the applicant or, in some cases, a representative payee. It also creates rules for when the election can be made or revoked, including special timing rules for pending claims, new applications, reconsiderations, and hearings.
The bill would reduce the usual delay in cash benefits for eligible SSDI claimants, but it does so with an offset mechanism intended to keep the Disability Insurance Trust Fund actuarially neutral over the long term. For an initial period, benefits paid during the waiting period would be reduced to 94.25 percent of the normal amount, and the Social Security Chief Actuary would periodically recalculate the percentage needed to preserve long-term fiscal neutrality. The Social Security Administration would also be required to update application forms and provide public information, including an online calculator, so applicants can understand the effect of electing early payment.
Impact
The bill would amend section 223(a) of the Social Security Act and change how SSDI entitlement is administered for claimants subject to the waiting period. It would create a new optional election for early payment, establish benefit-calculation rules for those who choose it, require the Commissioner of Social Security to update forms and public guidance, and direct the Chief Actuary to make recurring fiscal assessments tied to the Disability Insurance Trust Fund. The practical effect would be to alter benefit timing and administration for SSDI applicants and to add new administrative duties for the Social Security Administration.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a claimant-friendly reform aimed at reducing hardship during the disability waiting period. The bipartisan sponsorship by Senators Collins and Hassan suggests an intent to present the bill as a practical, targeted Social Security change rather than a partisan overhaul. No committee debate or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s bipartisan introduction.
Contention
The main policy tension is between providing earlier access to disability income and preserving the financial integrity of the Disability Insurance Trust Fund. The bill addresses that concern by requiring actuarial neutrality calculations and allowing the Commissioner to decline to certify a percentage if the fiscal target is not met, which could limit implementation. Another possible point of contention is administrative complexity: the bill requires new election and revocation windows, representative payee involvement, updated forms, and a public calculator, all of which could raise implementation and oversight concerns for the Social Security Administration.