During the campaign, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump made a remarkable promise to retirees: no taxes on Social Security benefits.

Now that Trump has won a second presidential term, that could lead Social Security beneficiaries to wonder whether that change might happen.

But abolishing those taxes could be a difficult task, even though Trump has a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Any change to Social Security would require at least 60 votes in the Senate, so Republicans would need some Democratic support to make those changes.

Simply eliminating taxes on benefits, without any other changes to offset that revenue loss, would worsen the program’s current funding problems, experts say.

“It’s hard for me to imagine that Democrats would be willing to give votes to exceed that 60-vote threshold and weaken Social Security’s solvency,” said Charles Blahous, senior research strategist at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, who has also served as a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare.

“I think it would give a lot of Republicans heartburn too,” he said.

More from Personal Finance:
Presidential elections are prompting some Americans to engage in “doom spending.”
What top advisors tell investors about the markets during elections
How the ‘vibecession’ is affecting investors this election year

Ending taxes on Social Security benefits — along with other Trump proposals to end taxes on tips and overtime, impose tariffs and deport immigrants — would “dramatically worsen” Social Security’s finances, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in a recent report.

The Trump campaign has reversed these findings, calling the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget “consistently wrong” in a statement to CNBC when the report was released.

The campaign did not respond Wednesday to a request for comment on where the proposal ranks on Trump’s list of priorities after his inauguration.

The Social Security trust fund used to help pay for retirement benefits is expected to run out in 2033, according to the program’s actuaries. At that point, beneficiaries could see across-the-board benefit cuts, although the president could potentially determine how those cuts are distributed among beneficiaries, according to recent research.

Experts say those who would benefit most from eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits would be the wealthy.

Households with incomes between $63,000 and $200,000 would benefit most from the change, according to an August analysis from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Lower-income households earning $32,000 or less would not get a tax cut because most of their Social Security benefits are currently not taxed. Meanwhile, those with annual incomes between $32,000 and $60,000 could see about $90 in tax cuts, according to the study.

“You’re giving a tax break to the higher-income seniors, so that could also soften their political selling ability,” Blahous said.

Currently, up to 85% of Social Security benefits can be taxed based on an individual or couple’s income. Those taxes are determined based on a formula called combined income, or the sum of adjusted gross income, nontaxable interest and half of Social Security benefits.

Individuals face up to 85% taxes on their benefits if they have more than $34,000 in combined income; for married couples, this applies if their combined income is more than $44,000.

Individual beneficiaries can pay taxes on up to 50% of their distributions on combined income between $25,000 and $34,000, or for married couples between $32,000 and $44,000.

Because these thresholds are not adjusted, more Social Security benefit income becomes subject to income tax over time.

For now, financial advisors say it’s too early to include the elimination of taxes on benefits in financial plans.

“You don’t know what the law or policy will be if it hasn’t even been properly drafted, let alone passed,” says David Haas, a certified financial planner and owner of Cereus Financial Advisors in Franklin Lakes, New York. Jersey.

“I wouldn’t jump to conclusions,” he said.