Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The bill amends section 408(a) of the Social Security Act to require that, beginning October 1, 2026, each State expend at least 25% of its TANF block grant on specified core work-related activities. Covered activities include work supports, education and training, apprenticeships, non-recurring short-term benefits, work activities (per section 407(d)), and case management for individual responsibility plans.
Liberals emphasize training and supports; conservatives emphasize state flexibility.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory amendment that establishes a quantitative spending requirement for TANF block grant funds and integrates that requirement into the relevant section of the Social Security Act.
The bill amends section 408(a) of the Social Security Act to require that, beginning October 1, 2026, each State expend at least 25% of its TANF block grant on specified core work-related activities.
Covered activities include work supports, education and training, apprenticeships, non-recurring short-term benefits, work activities (per section 407(d)), and case management for individual responsibility plans.
Technically narrow and low budgetary cost, but touches a divisive welfare subject and restricts state flexibility with limited compromise features.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory amendment that establishes a quantitative spending requirement for TANF block grant funds and integrates that requirement into the relevant section of the Social Security Act. It specifies affected entities and an effective date but omits many operational details necessary to implement, measure, and enforce the requirement.
Liberals emphasize training and supports; conservatives emphasize state flexibility.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize training and supports; conservatives emphasize state flexibility.
Likely broadly supportive because it directs TANF funds toward job training, supports, and case management.
Would favor the emphasis on pathways to employment while wanting safeguards for basic cash aid and vulnerable households.
Cautious support if implementation details and oversight are clarified.
Appreciates targeted investment in employability but worries about unfunded mandates, administrative burdens, and displaced services.
Likely opposed due to federal imposition on state flexibility and programmatic micromanagement.
While approving the pro-work focus, prefers state control or market-based alternatives.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow and low budgetary cost, but touches a divisive welfare subject and restricts state flexibility with limited compromise features.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize training and supports; conservatives emphasize state flexibility.
Technically narrow and low budgetary cost, but touches a divisive welfare subject and restricts state flexibility with limited compromise f…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory amendment that establishes a quantitative spending requirement for TANF block grant funds and integrates that requirement into the rele…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.