Bold claim: IPERS isn’t on the chopping block for major changes in the 2026 session, but a useful study on the system could be on the horizon. That was the takeaway from Tuesday’s meeting of Iowa’s Public Retirement Systems Committee in Des Moines, where leaders indicated lawmakers aren’t rushing to overhaul Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (IPERS). Still, they left the door open to research and informed consideration that could inform future policy.
The discussion comes after months of concerns tied to IPERS, sparked in part by recommendations from the Iowa DOGE task force. This group—composed of private-sector leaders convened in February to look for ways to improve state and local government efficiency—proposed a study of public employee benefits and, where feasible, offering employees a choice among benefit plans. That plan is a more cautious iteration of an earlier DOGE proposal to shift IPERS from a defined-benefits framework to a defined-contribution model, in which both employees and employers would contribute to retirement accounts. The latter idea faced strong pushback from labor organizations and advocates who warned it could undermine the financial security of current IPERS members.
At the start of the meeting, Senator Tim Kraayenbrink, Republican of Fort Dodge and co-chair of the committee, stressed that DOGE’s suggestions are not binding and are not accompanied by any written legislation awaiting a vote. Yet he added that lawmakers are open to considering measures that might improve IPERS, should credible proposals emerge.
Kraayenbrink expressed a measured openness to exploring potential improvements that aren’t part of current practice. He noted that even as a long-time IPERS contributor, he supports examining ideas that could enhance the system, as long as they’re well-founded and beneficial.
When reporters asked about appetite for sweeping changes, Kraayenbrink said there isn’t an immediate push among Republican lawmakers to overhaul IPERS. He suggested that if public employees advocate for changes, legislators would weigh those requests. He pointed to recent increases in cost-of-living adjustments for Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff retirement benefits as an example of adjustments that can be considered when justified.
The idea moving forward, he indicated, could include studying the potential viability of a defined-contribution option for future hires, alongside other proposed changes. He encouraged gathering more information on the impact of these proposals, arguing that a formal study could either confirm the wisdom of staying the course or reveal compelling reasons to adjust the system.
“Why wouldn’t you want a study that either confirms we should stay put because it’s too costly, or proves that a change would be great for taxpayers and workers alike?” Kraayenbrink said. “There’s no harm in being informed.” He cautioned that a study is not a promise of drastic change and urged openness to new ideas without assuming a predetermined outcome.
Kraayenbrink also criticized what he described as closeness of some opinions, encouraging a fact-based approach to understand IPERS’ future so Iowa remains competitive.
The DOGE report envisions preserving IPERS for current public employees, while suggesting that future workers could opt into a defined-contribution plan if it proves financially viable. Organizers warned, however, that such a shift could threaten IPERS’ long-term solvency.
Tammy Gertsen, an organizer with Indivisible Iowa, emphasized that the inflow of money from both current and future employees is essential to sustaining IPERS and ensuring retirees receive their benefits. She remained skeptical of lawmakers who say no changes will be made, noting plans can evolve through the legislative process and that what’s proposed today may look different when it reaches the governor’s desk.
Officials within IPERS also signaled support for maintaining the current structure. Matt Carver, chair of the IPERS Benefits Advisory Committee, said his group unanimously backed a resolution urging IPERS to stay within its existing legal framework. He acknowledged the DOGE ideas were an attempt to find cost-saving options, but expressed concern about the potential impact on the system.
Gregory Samorajski, IPERS’ chief executive officer, and other public-employee-benefits leaders reported strong financial performance in 2025, with healthy reserves heading into the new year. Rep. Adam Zabner, a Democrat from Iowa City who sits on the committee, characterized the meeting as demonstrating IPERS’ strength while criticizing the Governor’s DOGE recommendations as risky and unnecessary. He called on colleagues to protect IPERS’ earned retirement security for Iowans and to keep the system strong and intact.
The broader takeaway is nuanced: while there is little immediate momentum for sweeping IPERS changes, there is appetite for informed study and monitored consideration. This approach could yield targeted, evidence-backed improvements—or reaffirm the value of preserving IPERS as-is. What do you think about studying pension systems to expose opportunities for improvement without forcing sudden overhauls? Should lawmakers err on the side of caution and maintain current structures, or is a measured shift to a defined-contribution option worth exploring for future generations of public workers?
