National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

What it reported doing in 2025

The National Committee's 2026 fiscal year was during the 119th Congress (2025-2026) and the first and second years of the Trump Administration. Therefore, most of our legislative and regulatory advocacy was aimed at opposing harmful legislation and calling attention to the mass staff reductions and mayhem caused by the so-called "Department of Government Efficiency" at agencies and programs important to older Americans. In addition, we begin increasing our political activity to help elect "senior friendly" majorities to the House and Senate in the 2026 election. The National Committee focused our legislative advocacy, communications and direct mail to members at opposing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21) (also known as the "Big Ugly Bill") which cut Medicaid and SNAP benefits by over $1 trillion to partly pay for tax cuts that mainly benefited the wealthy and large corporations. We reminded National Committee members that "near seniors" age 50-64 who are enrolled in Medicaid or the ACA help to control Medicare costs, but those costs would go up if Medicaid benefits were cut and the ACA's "enhanced premium tax credit" (EPTC) was not extended. In addition, we educated members of Congress that most long-term care is paid for by Medicaid and cutting the program by $1 trillion would harm nursing homes and home and community-based services. Unfortunately, the Big Ugly bill was signed into law on July 1, 2025, and the ACA EPTC was allowed to expire on December 31, 2025. Before and after the start of our fiscal year on April 1, 2025, the National Committee fought for adequate discretionary funding for the Social Security Administration's operating budget, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Older Americans Act programs and other agencies and programs key to the well-being of seniors. Although we worked in coalition with the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations (LCAO) to persuade Congress not to eliminate several key programs, the enacted appropriations legislation flat-funded or cut most agencies and programs important to older Americans. The National Committee focused public attention on the chaos DOGE created throughout the federal government - but especially at the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Department of Health and Human Service's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Administration on Community Living through questionable and illegal mass layoffs and forced retirements. With regard to SSA, the 13 percent staff cut was the largest in the agency's history, and has forced the SSA to triage operations, moving staff from one part of SSA to another as public demands reached critical levels: some days answering phones, other days staffing field offices, with only a bare minimum of training to adequately meet the new job requirements. As a result of the overall shortage in staff, filling holes in one critical area inevitably left gaps in others, and the consequences of this staff inadequacy have been felt by consumers who continue to report alarming delays and logjams as they attempt to access their earned benefits. More than half of seniors and survivors who scheduled an appointment with an SSA field office to file an application for benefits waited more than a month until their appointment. More than 800,000 people have been in a queue awaiting an initial decision on their application for disability benefits, and it has taken SSA more than 6 months, on average, to make a decision - twice as long as in the past. These long waits can be particularly harmful for people of color, low-income applicants, and others who on average are less likely to have savings or other resources to fall back on. Thousands have died while waiting for a decision on whether they are eligible for disability benefits, and many more have endured years without income, in the process often exhausting their life savings and even losing their homes. While no field offices have officially been shuttered in t

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 72.2%; rating input score 72
• Program expense ratio: 66.2%; rating input score 66
• Fundraising efficiency: $8.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
  • Compensation committee: Missing
  • Independent consultant: Missing
  • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
  • Written employment contract: Pass
  • Compensation survey or study: Pass
  • Board or committee approval: Pass
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: Limited
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: Pass
  • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Pass
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

• Operating margin: -7.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.56; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: -7.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: -7.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: -10.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings