Bill Summary
What this bill does in plain terms: The Freedom to Invest in Tomorrow’s Workforce Act would expand what families can pay for, tax-free, from a 529 education savings account. Under current law, 529 plans mainly cover “qualified higher education expenses” at eligible colleges and universities (and, after recent reforms, some apprenticeship-related costs, certain K–12 tuition, and limited student loan repayment). This bill broadens that list to include a wide range of nondegree, career-oriented credentials, licensing and certification testing fees, and required continuing education necessary to maintain a credential.
How it changes the tax code: The bill amends section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code so that “qualified higher education expenses” also include “qualified postsecondary credentialing expenses.” It creates a new subsection defining those expenses to cover:
- Tuition, fees, books, supplies, equipment, and comparable expenses for enrollment or attendance in a recognized postsecondary credential program. If a type of expense would already qualify at a traditional college (for example, required supplies or a laptop), it would also qualify when tied to an eligible credential program.
Pros
- Promotes nondegree and skills-based pathways that can quickly connect workers to in-demand jobs, supporting inclusive workforce development beyond traditional four-year colleges.
- Explicitly covers registered apprenticeships and state-vetted programs, aligning with long-standing Democratic support for apprenticeships and union-affiliated training.
- Allows tax-free payment of required continuing education for licensed workers (nurses, teachers, social workers, etc.), reducing maintenance costs for essential professions.
- Uses WIOA eligible training provider lists and VA/DoD directories as quality guardrails, reducing the risk of predatory or low-value programs compared to an open-ended expansion.
- Helps veterans and transitioning service members by aligning with WEAMS and DoD COOL, smoothing pathways into civilian careers.
- Encourages lifelong learning and mid-career reskilling, which can help displaced workers adapt to automation and sectoral shifts.
- Bipartisan coalition suggests pragmatic, workable policy rather than partisan symbolism, improving prospects for implementation and stability.
- No new bureaucracy or direct outlays; leverages existing programs and lists, which can make the change easier to administer.
- Expands educational choice and flexibility without creating a new federal program; individuals decide how to use their own savings.
- Supports workforce readiness, trades, and apprenticeships—priorities often emphasized by Republicans as alternatives to four-year degrees.
- No direct federal spending; relies on private saving and existing infrastructure, limiting government footprint while promoting upskilling.
- Reduces barriers to entry for licensed occupations by allowing tax-free payment of required exams and continuing education.
- Leverages established lists (WIOA, WEAMS, DoD COOL) and industry accreditation rather than building new regulatory frameworks.
- Benefits veterans and military families by aligning with recognized credentialing directories, improving transitions to civilian work.
- Encourages lifelong learning that can keep the labor force agile and meet employer demand for specific skills.
- Bipartisan sponsorship (Klobuchar, Marshall, Welch, Collins) signals broad appeal and practical design likely to withstand political shifts.
Cons
- 529 tax benefits skew to higher-income households with the capacity to save, so the expansion could widen inequities unless paired with need-based supports like Pell Grants or workforce grants.
- Foregone federal (and potentially state) tax revenue could crowd out or complicate funding for direct investments in public higher education and job training that more equitably reach low-income learners.
- Quality risks remain: accreditation by NCCA/ANSI or inclusion on a list is not a perfect proxy for value or wage gains; some for-profit providers could still exploit the system.
- Covers costly professional testing and required continuing education that employers or professional associations arguably should fund, potentially subsidizing already advantaged professions (e.g., law, finance).
- Administrative complexity and confusion for families and plan administrators may persist, requiring IRS guidance and raising compliance risks.
- Does not address upfront affordability for those without savings; expanding allowable uses doesn’t help workers who cannot fund a 529 at all.
- Treasury’s discretionary authority, while useful, may be insufficiently transparent without robust reporting and guardrails to prevent industry capture.
- Broadening tax-favored uses erodes the tax base and adds complexity to the code, a concern for fiscal conservatives who prefer base-broadening and lower rates.
- Delegates discretion to the Treasury Department (after consulting Labor) to recognize programs and credentials, raising fears of bureaucratic overreach or politicization.
- By recognizing and subsidizing licensing-related costs, the bill could unintentionally entrench occupational licensing regimes that many Republicans view as excessive barriers to work.
- Compliance burdens for 529 administrators and families may increase, and small errors could trigger penalties, contrary to simplification goals.
- Still picks winners by relying on specific lists and accrediting bodies; quality programs outside these lists could be excluded, distorting the education marketplace.
- Expands eligibility to some high-earning professions’ expenses (e.g., bar or CPA exam fees), which may not align with targeting relief to those most in need.
This bill was introduced on February 26, 2025 in the Senate.
View on Congress.gov:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/756
-
Feb 26, 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
-
Feb 26, 2025
Introduced in Senate
10000
This bill has not yet been enacted into law.
Sponsors
Policy Area: Taxation