Public disputes concerning the U.S. Social Security system, benefits, eligibility, financing, and proposed policy changes.
Published coverage on this page: 1 case · 10 statements. Statements are ordered newest first.
Jon Ossoff’s campaign used Mike Collins’s “get off of Social Security” remark to say he would push beneficiaries off the program. Collins’s campaign said he misspoke and meant Medicaid; Ossoff’s campaign said the ad fairly reflected his support for pressuring beneficiaries into work.
Published
Read the caseLabels describe a response to the linked claim or the action explained in the statement summary. Choose one or more.
10 matching statements
Role at the time: Fact-checking news organization
Statement summary
PolitiFact rated Ossoff's ad claims about Collins and Social Security Mostly False.
“Mostly False”
What this label refers to
PolitiFact's institutional Mostly False rating is an editorial determination directly disputing the accuracy of the ad's characterization of Collins's position, not straight reporting.
Role at the time: Campaign spokesperson for Mike Collins
Statement summary
Collins campaign spokesperson Meyer Siegfried told PolitiFact that Collins was not talking about taking away earned Social Security benefits.
“He was not talking about taking earned Social Security retirement benefits away from seniors... Rep. Collins believes seniors who spent their lives paying into Social Security should receive the benefits they earned.”
What this label refers to
Siegfried directly disputes the ad's characterization of Collins's position, consistent with how the campaign's earlier statement in this case was classified.
Role at the time: Retirement-security advocacy group, posting on its official X account
Response to this claim
Mike Collins wants to push Social Security beneficiaries off the program.
“SHAME: Mike Collins says seniors need to “get off Social Security [and] get back into the workforce””
The case asks whether the Ossoff advertisement fairly represented Collins's radio interview. Social Security Works repeats the advertisement's reading, that Collins was telling seniors to leave Social Security and work, which supports the characterization under scrutiny; we labeled it Defended or excused, as with the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare in this case. Condemned is the closest competing label, but the criticism is aimed at Collins rather than at the advertisement's use of his words. Evidence level: the organization's own post.
Role at the time: Progressive digital media outlet, posting on its official X account
Response to this claim
Mike Collins wants to push Social Security beneficiaries off the program.
“GEORGIA Republican Congressman Mike Collins (@ossoff’s opponent) wants you to work til you die, with fewer benefits, as they cut taxes for the rich and inequality skyrockets.”
The case asks whether the Ossoff advertisement fairly represented Collins's radio interview. The outlet presents the same reading the advertisement uses, that Collins wants older people off their benefits and back at work, which supports the characterization under scrutiny, so we labeled it Defended or excused. Condemned loses because the criticism targets Collins himself, not the advertisement's treatment of his words. Evidence level: the outlet's own post with the attached clip.
Role at the time: National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, through its official X account
Statement summary
NCPSSM asserted that Collins wanted to end Social Security and cited that assertion as a reason for endorsing Ossoff.
“GOP Rep. Mike Collins wants to end Social Security.”
What this label refers to
The case asks whether the Ossoff advertisement fairly represented Collins’s radio interview. NCPSSM adopts the advertisement’s reading by asserting that Collins wants to end Social Security, which supports the characterization under scrutiny. The closest competing label is “Condemned”; it loses because the statement criticizes Collins, not the advertisement’s characterization of him.
Role at the time: Fact-checking project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, in an article by Eugene Kiely
Statement summary
FactCheck.org concluded that two Ossoff ads used a partial clip of Collins's 2025 radio interview and took his words out of context to say he wanted to push people off Social Security and back to work. It found that Collins had been arguing that tax cuts would make work more advantageous.
“In the Georgia Senate race, Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff has been running TV ads that take a sound bite from his opponent about Social Security out of context.”
What this label refers to
The case asks whether the Ossoff advertisement fairly represented Collins's radio interview. FactCheck.org's institutional conclusion disputes the advertisement's reading of Collins's words, so we labeled it Challenged the characterization, matching the PolitiFact rating in this case. Condemned is the closer alternative but loses because the article does not go on to denounce the campaign's conduct; it sets the clip against the full interview. Evidence level: the fact-checker's own published article.
Role at the time: Mike Collins U.S. Senate campaign, through spokesperson Sam Densmore
Statement summary
The Collins campaign said the Social Security reference was a mistake, that he meant Medicaid, and that the Ossoff ad intentionally truncated the interview to mislead voters.
“Rep. Collins misspoke”
What this label refers to
The campaign directly contests the ad’s interpretation and says the excerpt omits crucial context.
Role at the time: Spokesperson for the Ossoff campaign, in an interview with FactCheck.org
Statement summary
An Ossoff campaign spokesperson defended the advertisement’s use of the clip to FactCheck.org, saying the campaign was using Collins’s words as spoken and that he had supplied no further context. In an accompanying memo the campaign said its ads do not imply coercion, but that Collins wanted to “exert influence and pressure” to move beneficiaries into the workforce.
“We are taking the quote as he said it, and he did not provide additional context.”
What this label refers to
On whether the advertisement fairly represented Collins’s radio interview, the campaign defends the advertisement, which is the conduct under scrutiny here. It does not dispute a description offered by someone else but maintains that its own use of the clip was fair, so “Challenged the characterization” is the weaker fit.
Role at the time: Jon Ossoff U.S. Senate campaign
Statement summary
An Ossoff campaign television ad used a portion of Collins’s radio interview—“get off of Social Security, get back into the workforce”—to argue that he wanted to push beneficiaries off Social Security.
“He wants to push you off Social Security.”
What this label refers to
The case asks whether the advertisement fairly represented Collins’s radio interview, and the advertisement is the conduct under scrutiny. By presenting the clipped excerpt as Collins’s position, the campaign asserts that its reading is fair. The closest competing label is “Condemned,” which would describe criticism of the advertisement; the ad criticizes Collins, not its own characterization of him.
Role at the time: United States representative for Georgia’s 10th Congressional District
Statement summary
In a June 2025 radio interview, Collins argued that lower taxes could create incentives to work and referred in the same sentence to Medicaid, Social Security, and returning to work.
“get off of Social Security”
What this label refers to
The full answer offers a policy rationale for increasing work incentives, while its application to Social Security beneficiaries is the specific point later disputed by the campaigns.
Mike Collins is a Republican U.S. representative from Georgia's 10th Congressional District and the Republican nominee for the 2026 United States Senate election in Georgia.
1 case and 3 statements
United States senator from Georgia.
1 case and 2 statements
