Have advocacy groups or think tanks pushed for a Social Security name change recently?

1. What the available reporting actually documents about “changes” to Social Security

Multiple reputable sources in the supplied set focus on policy proposals and reforms aimed at solvency, benefit formula adjustments, tax base changes, and administrative rule changes—topics like raising the taxable maximum, altering the retirement age for some earners, and modifying the calculation period for benefits—but none of those documents propose renaming the Social Security program itself (Brookings’s reform blueprint and related commentary lay out tax and benefit changes) ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

2. No source in the set shows advocacy for a formal name change of the program

A direct search of the provided items turns up program reform proposals and congressional bills to change rules and protections (for example, media coverage of congressional action and think-tank reform roadmaps), but none of those documents advance or recommend changing the program’s name from “Social Security” to anything else; the Social Security Administration’s own materials list “Proposals to Change Social Security” in the sense of statutory or regulatory changes, not a program rebranding ^{[1] [7] [4] [5]}.

3. Why the question can be confused with unrelated “name change” content

The corpus also includes SSA guidance on individuals changing their personal name on Social Security records and practical how-to guides for name-change processing, which are administrative matters for beneficiaries and are distinct from a systemic or political renaming of the program—which may explain occasional conflation between “changing a name on a Social Security card” and “changing the name of Social Security as a program” ^{[2] [3] [8]}.

4. Who has been actively advocating changes — substance, not branding

Think tanks and policy groups in the materials are actively urging structural reforms: Brookings published a blueprint that recommends raising the taxable maximum and other adjustments to restore long-term solvency ^[4]; the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and similar policy shops have set out bipartisan roadmaps combining tax and benefit changes ^[5]; the Tax Foundation catalogs reform options and historical context for altering revenue or benefit calculations ^[6]; and watchdog and advocacy groups such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analyze proposed regulations that would change eligibility or benefit rules for SSI and related programs ^[9]. These actors are debating who pays and who benefits, not the program’s title.

5. How to interpret the absence of “name change” advocacy in these sources

Given the supplied reporting, the credible public conversation documented here is about policy trade-offs—solvency measures, COLA impacts, retirement-age adjustments, and administrative rules—not branding. Where the SSA addresses “change your name” procedures it is assisting individuals, not responding to a push to rename the agency or program ^{[2] [3]}. It remains possible outside this curated set that a minor advocacy group or fringe actor somewhere has floated a rebrand idea; the materials provided do not include any such calls, and therefore cannot substantiate that claim.

Conclusion and limitation of this review

Based strictly on the provided reporting, advocacy groups and mainstream think tanks have pushed for policy and structural reforms to Social Security but not for an official change of the program’s name; the SSA guidance on changing an individual’s name explains beneficiary-level record updates rather than a renaming campaign ^{[1] [2] [4]}. This assessment is limited to the supplied sources; if there is interest in searching broader media, think-tank press releases, or social media narratives beyond this dataset, that could uncover isolated proposals or rhetorical suggestions not represented here.