Upward Mobility Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 20, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to empower states with flexibility to innovate antipoverty strategies by consolidating federal funding and waiving regulations, with a strong emphasis on employment outcomes and reducing disincentives to work.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a 5-year pilot program allowing up to five states to consolidate federal antipoverty funds into "Upward Mobility Grants." States can apply for waivers from existing program requirements to design new benefit structures aimed at reducing "benefit cliffs" and increasing employment and earnings among participants. The program includes a work requirement for recipients and mandates rigorous independent evaluation of participant outcomes.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the current fragmented federal antipoverty system creates disincentives for work and upward mobility due to "benefit cliffs" and complex eligibility rules. They contend this bill would allow states to streamline services, tailor programs to local needs, and foster innovative approaches that genuinely help individuals achieve self-sufficiency through employment, ultimately reducing long-term dependence on assistance.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that consolidating funds and granting broad waiver authority could lead to reduced protections for vulnerable populations, potential cuts to essential benefits, and a loss of federal oversight. They may also express concern that a strong emphasis on work requirements and employment outcomes could penalize individuals facing significant barriers to employment, such as disabilities, lack of childcare, or economic downturns, without adequate support.
The bill is moderately complex, requiring careful reading to understand the interplay of waiver authority, program consolidation, and evaluation requirements. The estimated reading time is appropriate for an informed reader.
Section 2(c), 2(d), 2(a)(3)
Establishment of Upward Mobility Grants
This provision establishes a pilot program for up to five states to receive consolidated federal funds, called "Upward Mobility Grants," for antipoverty programs. These grants replace existing federal funding for a wide range of programs including SNAP, TANF, Child Care, LIHEAP, WIOA, and various housing assistance programs, calculated based on prior year's funding adjusted for inflation. States can also opt for limited-scope pilot projects.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that consolidating funds reduces administrative burdens, allows states to tailor programs to unique local needs, and fosters innovation in antipoverty strategies that are currently hindered by rigid federal rules.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that consolidating funds could lead to a reduction in overall funding for specific programs if states reallocate resources, potentially undermining the original intent of federal categorical grants to address specific needs.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances federal oversight and program specificity with state flexibility and local control. The tradeoff is between ensuring consistent national standards for antipoverty programs and allowing states to experiment with potentially more effective, integrated approaches.
Section 2(e)(1)
State Waivers of Federal Requirements
States participating in the pilot program can request waivers from statutory and regulatory requirements for antipoverty programs. These waivers can cover eligibility criteria, program design and operation, and the use or distribution of funding, as long as they are consistent with the overall goals of the antipoverty programs.
Section 2(e)(2), 2(e)(3)
Non-Waiverable Provisions and Housing Fund Protections
The bill explicitly prohibits waivers for provisions related to civil rights, health/safety, labor standards (FLSA), environmental protection, restrictions on benefits for non-citizens, religious freedom, appropriations limitations, and maintenance of effort requirements. Crucially, it also prohibits waiving any requirement that a State distribute funds to a sub-State entity. For housing programs specifically, funds must continue to be provided to the same eligible local entities or recipients as under existing law.
Section 2(h)
Mandatory Work Requirement for Direct Assistance Recipients
The bill mandates that the work requirements from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (specifically subsections (d) and (o) of section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008) shall apply to all recipients of direct assistance benefits under a pilot project. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is tasked with prescribing regulations to ensure compliance and enforcement of this requirement and auditing state integrity measures.
Section 2(f)(6), 2(g)(3)(C), 2(j)
Rigorous Independent Evaluation and Upward Mobility Metrics
Each participating state must contract with an independent, third-party evaluator to conduct annual evaluations of the pilot project. The evaluations must rigorously measure "upward mobility measures," including Marginal Effective Tax Rates (METRs), participant employment outcomes (earnings, employment rates, full-time employment, retention), reduction in per-capita direct assistance, elimination/reduction of marriage penalties, and reduction in poverty among participants. The methodology must use experimental designs (random assignment or strong causal inference methods).
Section 2(f)(7)
Reinvestment of Fiscal Savings
States are required to describe how they will use fiscal savings resulting from improvements in upward mobility measures. Permitted uses include improving program operations and infrastructure, establishing a State reserve fund for temporary direct assistance during economic downturns or disasters, enhancing program management and compliance, renovating community facilities, building capacity for collaboration with local entities, integrating program operations, and providing work supports for employed individuals not receiving grant assistance.
Section 3(c)
Centralization of Administrative Functions
A portion of the administrative functions currently exercised by various federal agencies (like USDA for SNAP, HUD for housing, DOL for WIOA) related to the covered antipoverty programs will be transferred to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will determine the exact scope of these transferred functions, along with associated personnel, assets, and funds.
The definition of "covered amount" explicitly states that it "does not include any amount described in subparagraph (A) that a State or public housing agency is so directed to use to provide funding for an Indian tribe."
Section 2(a)(3)(B)(ii)
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice to clarify scope, but it has significant implications for tribal governments.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this exclusion respects tribal sovereignty and the unique government-to-government relationship between federal and tribal governments, ensuring that tribal programs are not inadvertently swept into state-led pilot projects without their consent or separate negotiation.
Case against: Critics might argue that while respecting sovereignty is important, it could create a fragmented approach to antipoverty efforts in states with significant tribal populations, potentially leading to coordination challenges or leaving tribal members outside the scope of state innovations.
Estimated impact: Ensures that federal funds directly allocated to Indian tribes for antipoverty programs remain outside the state-led consolidation pilot, preserving tribal control over these resources.
No State shall receive an adjustment to an Upward Mobility Grant because the State increased the amount of the per-capita direct assistance provided, through an Upward Mobility Grant.
Section 2(k)
Why it matters:This is a technical but important fiscal rule, often placed at the end of funding sections.
Case for: Supporters would argue this prevents states from artificially inflating their per-capita direct assistance to receive larger federal grants, thereby ensuring that the grant calculation remains stable and incentivizes efficiency and reduced dependence rather than increased spending.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision could disincentivize states from increasing benefits to meet rising needs or address specific crises, as any such increase would not be matched by a corresponding federal adjustment, placing the full financial burden on the state.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the federal grant amount is not influenced by state decisions to increase per-capita direct assistance within the pilot, maintaining a fixed federal contribution based on pre-pilot spending.
When evaluating applications, the Secretary gives priority to pilot projects whose evaluation methodology uses random assignment or, if not feasible, one of eight specific alternative experimental designs: natural experiment, synthetic control method, differences-in-differences technique, regression discontinuity method, instrumental variable method, panel data with mixed effects method, propensity score matching method, or cross-sectional regression method.
Section 2(g)(4)(C)
Why it matters:This is a technical specification for rigorous evaluation, often detailed in such sections.
Case for: Supporters would argue that specifying these rigorous methodologies ensures that the pilot projects generate high-quality, credible evidence about what interventions are truly effective, moving beyond anecdotal results to inform policy.
Case against: Critics might argue that such prescriptive methodological requirements could be overly burdensome or exclude innovative approaches that don't fit neatly into these categories, potentially stifling creativity in program design or making it harder for smaller states to participate.
Estimated impact: Directs states and their evaluators towards specific, advanced statistical methods for program evaluation, increasing the scientific rigor of the pilot's findings.