This is the scare they lean on hardest, and it falls apart on the law, on the arithmetic, and on the negotiating table, in that order.
On the law, Social Security is portable. U.S. citizens collect it anywhere in the world, for life, with only a handful of country exceptions. The "benefits stop after six months abroad" rule that critics quote is a rule for non-citizens. Texans are overwhelmingly citizens and would stay citizens through any transition. On top of that, the United States already maintains about 30 "totalization" agreements with other countries for the express purpose of keeping benefits flowing across borders. A retiree in Lisbon draws her Social Security because the U.S. and Portugal have such an agreement. Continuity is the developed world's norm, not the exception.
On the arithmetic, Texas could run its own system comfortably, and would start ahead. Its workforce is younger than the rest of the union's, a median age of 35.9 against 39.2, with about 14 percent over 65 against 18 percent. Texans already pay an estimated 12 to 13 billion dollars a year more into Social Security than Texas retirees take out, money that currently props up the rest of the union. Keep it home and the system starts in the black. And there is a colder reason not to leave the program in Washington's keeping. In Flemming v. Nestor (1960) the Supreme Court held that no American has a contractual right to a Social Security check. Congress can cut or rewrite benefits whenever it chooses, and on its current path the combined trust fund runs dry in the early 2030s, with the retirement fund alone reaching depletion around 2032. The "guarantee" Texans are warned they would be risking is one Washington can revoke at will, and is already on track to break. A Texas that runs its own system answers to Texas voters, not to a Congress that can means-test the promise away.
On the negotiating table, the benefits are not a weakness. They are Texas's strongest card. These are earned, pre-paid obligations. The Treasury's own FY2025 financial report puts the federal government's unfunded 75-year Social Security and Medicare promise at 88.4 trillion dollars, and Texans funded about 8.7 percent of the system that owes it. In any separation, what each side owes the other gets netted out, so both claims go on the table together.
| In a Texas-U.S. settlement | Amount |
|---|---|
| Texas's share of the federal debt (from Part III) | ~$3.2 trillion |
| Accrued Social Security and Medicare owed to Texans | on the order of $7.7 trillion |
Be precise about what that 7.7 trillion is and is not, because our opponents will pounce otherwise. It is not a bank balance sitting in Texas's name. It is Texas's share of a 75-year accrued obligation, and part of it (Medicare's Parts B and D) is funded going forward out of general taxes that Texas would simply keep, so it washes rather than transfers. The Social Security piece alone nets on the order of 2.4 trillion. But here is the point that survives every one of those honest caveats. The benefit obligations Washington owes Texans are large enough that they exceed even the highest debt-apportionment method, the GDP share at about 3.7 trillion. So the direction does not depend on which method Washington picks or how you count. Texas comes to the settlement table holding a claim bigger than the bill, which turns the debt question from a liability Texas carries into a card Texas holds. The honest way to say it is not "the debt disappears." It is that Texas's net position is far better than a naked 3.2 trillion makes it look, and probably reverses. Texans do not lose their Social Security. They hold one of the strongest cards at the table.