Has any president used social security funds to support other initiatives?
Executive summary
Presidents do not directly “spend” Social Security payroll taxes on unrelated programs; surplus payroll receipts historically are invested by Treasury in special-issue Treasury securities and counts as federal borrowing to finance other government spending (trust fund structure) — a practice described as the government “borrowing” trust fund surpluses rather than theft [1] [2]. The Social Security trustees project trust fund depletion in the early-to-mid 2030s absent reforms, and recent legislative and policy moves (e.g., the Social Security Fairness Act, 2025) and administration policies have moved those depletion dates and projected benefit shortfalls in measurable ways [3] [4] [5].
1. How Social Security money is handled: bookkeeping, not a cash box
Social Security payroll taxes flow into legally separate trust funds (OASI and DI), and when those funds run surpluses the law requires Treasury to invest them in special-issue government securities rather than leave cash in an SSA vault; those securities are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government and function as an accounting mechanism showing that the Treasury owes the trust funds future payments [1] [2]. Multiple explainers insist that routine “borrowing” from surpluses is part of the program’s design and not the same as a president diverting beneficiary checks to other programs [1] [2].
2. Presidents haven’t “stolen” Social Security — but administrations influence the fund’s bookkeeping and viability
Several outlets and analysts emphasize that while presidents and Congress set budgets and tax and spending policy, the choice to invest surpluses in Treasury securities is statutory and longstanding; therefore claims that presidents “stole” Social Security are misconceptions, according to recent reporting [1] [2]. That said, administration policies and laws passed by Congress affect payroll-tax revenues, benefit rules, immigration and economic growth — all of which change the trust funds’ long-term projections [5] [4].
3. Which presidents “borrowed” the most? Context, not a scoreboard
Sources that attempt to tally which president “borrowed” most typically conflate Treasury accounting entries with discretionary transfers of cash. One site repeats a common narrative that every president since 1983 has used trust-fund surpluses to finance general government spending, while also noting there’s no evidence of unlawful diversion and that the securities remain obligations of the Treasury [6] [2]. These writers stress the difference between borrowing against trust-fund securities (a statutory practice) and illicit appropriation (not documented in cited reporting) [6] [2].
4. Recent policy changes and their measurable effects on solvency
Contemporary legislative and executive actions have moved the trustees’ depletion timelines. The 2025 Trustees Report and related summaries show projected trust fund exhaustion shifting into the early 2030s and quantify expected benefit reductions absent fixes; analysts cite specific drivers such as the Social Security Fairness Act’s repeal of the WEP/GPO and estimates that repeals or new laws reduced reserves by hundreds of billions over a decade [3] [4] [5]. The Congressional Budget Office and independent analysts link law changes and administration policies (including immigration and economic assumptions) to measurable impacts on the trust funds [5] [4].
5. Political framing and competing narratives
White House statements assert a pledge not to cut Social Security, while outside analysts argue some administration policies (tariffs, immigration limits, tax changes) could worsen the program’s finances by reducing payroll-tax growth — a clear case where competing viewpoints exist in the record [7] [5]. Advocacy outlets and fact-checkers emphasize that policy choices, not secret spending of benefit dollars, explain changes in trust fund trajectories [5] [8].
6. What reporting does not show (limits of available sources)
Available sources do not mention any instance in which a president diverted individual benefit checks or trust-fund securities to pay for unrelated programs in a legally impermissible fashion; instead reporting describes statutory investment of surpluses in Treasury securities and later budgeting/borrowing decisions by the federal government [1] [2]. Sources also do not provide a definitive single-president “highest borrower” ledger because comparisons depend on accounting choices and macroeconomic context rather than direct executive acts alone [6] [2].
7. Takeaway for readers: bookkeeping matters, policy matters more
The factual record in these sources shows the mechanism: Social Security surpluses are invested in Treasury securities, which the Treasury may draw on as part of overall federal financing — that practice has existed for decades and is not portrayed as theft [1] [2]. At the same time, legislative acts and administration policies materially change solvency projections; readers should focus on policy choices and trustees’ projections (e.g., depletion in the early 2030s and projected benefit shortfalls) when evaluating claims that a president “used” Social Security to fund other initiatives [3] [4] [5].