FACT CHECK: Sununu breaks out familiar Social Security playbook while campaigning for Senate

In his 2025 Senate comeback campaign, John Sununu is once again casting himself as a defender of Social Security, despite his history of backing privatization schemes.

In October 2002, an article published in the Nashua Telegraph reported on a New Hampshire Republican party ad supporting John Sununu in his bid for US Senate race that year.

In it, the party promised Sununu would never privatize Social Security. 

“Social Security is a sacred trust. John Sununu will fight any privatization scheme that puts your benefits at risk,” the political spot said, before detailing Sununu’s efforts to privatize social security going all the way back to 1996.

Now, history is repeating itself as he mounts another New Hampshire Senate campaign and again promises to protect the program. In his 2026 bid to reclaim a US Senate seat, Sununu is spotlighting Social Security as a core component of his campaign, making assurances he will not cut the program that has long been disputed by conservative lawmakers.

In his October 2025 launch video, Sununu told voters he “never voted to cut benefits” and would “never” do so, framing himself as a defender of seniors who rely on the program. “PROMISE TO SENIORS: NEVER CUT BENEFITS” text is seen floating on the ad.

But extensive congressional records, public statements, and past legislation show Sununu spent years at the center of efforts to privatize Social Security and advance high-risk alternative programs championed by conservative policy groups. He has long been devoted to spiking the program that experts have repeatedly warned could decimate benefits and expose retirees to catastrophic financial outcomes.

The legislation Sununu championed during his 2003-2009 Senate term would have diverted Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts, potentially reducing guaranteed benefits, increasing federal debt, and shifting risk onto retirees.

For example in 2005, Sununu voted against a bipartisan amendment that would have expressed Congress’ opposition to Social Security plans requiring “deep benefit cuts” or major increases to the national debt. Five Republicans, including Maine Sen. Susan Collins, voted in favor of the measure. It failed in a 50-50 vote.

That vote came during the Bush administration’s push to overhaul Social Security through private investment accounts.

RELATED: New poll tries to rebrand Sununu on LGBTQ+ and abortion

Sununu positioned himself not just as a supporter but as a leading figure in the effort, repeatedly defending privatization and urging younger workers to redirect at least a portion of their payroll taxes into private funds, crediting his willingness to compromise the program as a reason for his win.

“Everyone has finally recognized [Social Security] is no longer the third rail of politics,” Sununu told the Associated Press after his Senate win in 2002.

Sununu introduced the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act in both 2004 and 2005. The legislation would have created personal investment accounts for workers under 55, redirected portions of Social Security taxes into private funds managed through new federal investment boards, and allowed Wall Street firms to collect fees and commissions from the new accounts.

He also previously backed a National Taxpayers Union plan calling for “obligatory personally controlled retirement accounts,” telling the Nashua Telegraph he would “work and vote for a gradual transition” to mandatory private accounts. 

Sununu later partnered with then-Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on a plan in which Social Security would require an additional $2.4 trillion in new borrowing in its first decade and increase the national debt every year for at least 75 years unless Congress made “very deep cuts” elsewhere.

Analysts from the Economic Policy Institute, the Century Foundation, and the Center for American Progress (CAP) warned Sununu’s proposals would inevitably reduce benefits.

EPI described the required “clawbacks” as “substantial benefit cuts,” and AARP, APWU, and other advocates noted that workers could lose up to 15 cents of every dollar to fees charged by private money managers.

CAP found that a retiree with a private account under Sununu’s plan who left the workforce during the 2008 financial crash “would have lost approximately $26,000” after 35 years of contributions.

As of 2025 more than 330,000 Granite Staters rely on Social Security benefits, including over 245,000 retired workers.

Had Sununu’s privatization system been enacted in 2005, tens of thousands of those now-retired beneficiaries would have spent their working years contributing to private accounts exposed to stock-market swings instead of the guaranteed Social Security system.