While many Republicans have called for protecting or even expanding Social Security benefits, Republican lawmakers have pushed aside a bill that would help millions of Americans get higher monthly payments. Experts spoke to Newsweek about the possible motives behind the move.

A Social Security bill that would have repealed two rules that cut benefits for certain retirees was advanced by House Reps. Garret Graves (R-LA) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA).

Despite the bill previously having broad bipartisan support and Graves and Spanberger securing the 218 signatures needed to bring the bill to the House, the Freedom Caucus blocked the bill from passing.

Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD) received unanimous approval to bring the Social Security bill to the table. This broke the protocol and makes the bill inactive for the time being. To get it passed, lawmakers would have to vote based on the discharge rules.

Or a new bill could be introduced with similar guidance for Social Security beneficiaries currently affected by the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO).

These provisions reduce Social Security benefits in proportion to a beneficiary’s pension amount, affecting individuals who receive pensions from work not covered by Social Security.

Newsweek contacted Graves and Harris for comment via email.

If implemented, the law would have cost $196 billion over 10 years, with the Social Security Administration already facing a funding gap that would cut benefits as early as 2035.

“I believe Republicans blocked this bill to delay any changes until they reach a majority in the House or Senate,” Kevin Thompson, a financial expert and founder and CEO of 9i Capital Group, told me. Newsweek. “Although they cited the cost of the package as a reason, the timing suggests a possible strategic move to maintain control.”

For many current Social Security recipients, the WEP and GPO deduct thousands of dollars from their annual benefits, and many of them are retired government employees, former police officers, teachers and nurses.

“The GPO and WEP are intended to prevent beneficiaries from receiving more than their entitlement to benefits. To clarify, they do not reduce benefits for those who are fully entitled to both Social Security and retirement benefits. If someone has not paid into Social Security, “they should not expect full Social Security and retirement benefits at the same time,” Thompson said.

Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor at the University of Tennessee at Martin, said it is unclear whether the tabling of the bill was due to lawmakers opposing the idea or wanting a new bill in its place in the future introduce.

“The bill in question extended social security benefits to a small group that had been excluded in the past due to provisions on combining those benefits with supplementary pensions of workers in certain sectors,” Beene said. Newsweek.

He added: “The proposal was popular and had bipartisan support, which makes its omission for the time being even more puzzling. The hope is that the decision to submit it now will lead to it being offered in a different format in the future. The benefits that would accrue to recipients would help them immensely in the bloated economic times we currently find ourselves in.”