Home  /  Recent Bills  /  Freedom to Invest in Tomorrow’s Workforce Act
HOUSE · HR 1151 119 CONGRESS

Freedom to Invest in Tomorrow’s Workforce Act

INTRODUCED
February 07, 2025
POLICY AREA
Taxation
STATUS
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
SOURCE
Congress.gov ↗

Bill Summary

H.R. 1151, the Freedom to Invest in Tomorrow’s Workforce Act, would expand the allowable uses of 529 education savings accounts to cover a wide range of postsecondary credentialing costs beyond traditional college and university programs. Under current law, 529 plans allow families to grow savings tax-free and withdraw earnings tax-free for “qualified higher education expenses,” which typically include tuition, fees, books, supplies, equipment, some room and board, and certain other defined education costs. Congress has gradually broadened 529 uses over the past decade (for example, to include K–12 tuition up to a cap, registered apprenticeship expenses, and limited student loan repayment). This bill takes another step by explicitly adding nondegree credentials and the costs associated with obtaining and maintaining them.

Mechanically, the bill amends Section 529(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code to add a new category of “qualified postsecondary credentialing expenses,” and inserts a new subsection (f) defining that term. In plain terms, families could use 529 funds for: (1) tuition, fees, books, supplies, and equipment required for enrollment or attendance in a recognized postsecondary credential program; (2) fees for exams required to obtain or maintain a recognized credential; and (3) fees for continuing education required to maintain such a credential. Notably, the bill aligns covered “other expenses” with those that would be covered if the student were enrolled in an “eligible educational institution,” ensuring parity of treatment for nondegree pathways.

A key feature is how the bill defines “recognized postsecondary credential program” and “recognized postsecondary credential” to build guardrails and minimize fraud. A qualifying program must meet at least one of four tests: be on a state Eligible Training Provider List under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), be listed in the Department of Veterans Affairs’ WEAMS Public directory (programs approved for GI Bill use), be recognized by a reputable credentialing organization as preparing individuals for a required industry exam, or be identified by the Secretary (after consultation with the Secretary of Labor) as a reputable program. The credential itself must be among a broad but circumscribed set: an industry-recognized postsecondary employment credential (including credentials issued by programs accredited by the Institute for Credentialing Excellence/National Commission on Certifying Agencies or ANSI, or listed in the Department of Defense’s COOL directories), a U.S. Department of Labor–registered apprenticeship completion certificate, an occupational or professional license (or a prerequisite certification for such a license), or a credential meeting WIOA’s statutory definition.

In practical terms, this means 529 savings could be used for a wide array of short-term training and professional upskilling: for example, CompTIA or AWS cloud certifications, Project Management Professional (PMP) exam fees, EMT certification renewals, continuing medical education to maintain nursing or physician licensure, real estate licensing courses and exams, electrician apprenticeship-related costs, or other trade certifications recognized by states or DOL. The bill also covers fees for required continuing education and recertification exams, not just initial training, which is significant for working adults who must periodically maintain licensure.

The measure does not change contribution limits, distribution penalties, or the general tax treatment of 529 plans. Withdrawals for the newly covered expenses would be qualified and therefore tax-free; nonqualified withdrawals would still trigger taxes and a penalty on earnings. The bill applies to distributions made after enactment. It does not explicitly address state tax conformity; as with prior federal 529 expansions, states may need to update their own laws to ensure consistent state tax treatment, which could create a period of uneven implementation.

Supporters argue the bill modernizes 529 plans to reflect today’s labor market, where many high-value credentials come from nondegree programs, apprenticeships, or licensing pathways rather than traditional four-year colleges. By allowing exam fees and mandatory continuing education, the bill targets real costs that often fall on mid-career workers, veterans transitioning to civilian life, and adults changing careers. It also relies on existing federal and state quality filters—WIOA lists, VA approvals, apprenticeship registrations, and recognized accreditors—plus a backstop discretionary authority for the Secretary (in consultation with Labor) to identify reputable programs. The bipartisan sponsorship—spanning both parties and both chambers’ workforce and tax interests—reflects a broad appetite for skills-centered policy that is not limited to degrees.

Critics might note potential trade-offs. Expanding 529 eligibility is a tax expenditure that likely reduces federal revenue; the bill does not specify an offset. Because higher-income families are more likely to hold and contribute to 529s, benefits may skew toward households already positioned to save, raising equity questions. Some may worry the “recognized” definitions, while more protective than a blanket expansion, still leave room for low-quality providers or credential inflation, and that tax preferences could fuel price increases for exams and continuing education. Others may question whether subsidizing costs to obtain or maintain occupational licenses unintentionally reinforces licensing regimes some view as excessive barriers to entry.

Overall, H.R. 1151 would make 529 plans more flexible and better aligned with nondegree training routes, apprenticeships, and professional licensure maintenance, with a framework of recognized program lists and accrediting references intended to guard against abuse. The practical impact would be to reduce out-of-pocket costs for a wide variety of career-oriented credentials, especially for adults and veterans, while raising familiar debates about the distributional impact of 529 tax benefits and the proper role of the tax code in workforce policy.

Ask This Bill

Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.

Read the full analysis on Congress.gov →

Where Each Party Stands

Democrats

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Modernizes education benefits to include nondegree pathways that can quickly connect workers to good jobs, supporting reskilling and upskilling for a dynamic labor market.
+Explicit guardrails tie eligibility to WIOA state lists, VA approvals, reputable accreditors, and registered apprenticeships, reducing risks from predatory providers.
+Covers continuing education and exam fees, real costs that burden working adults and licensed professionals and can be barriers to maintaining employment.
+Supports registered apprenticeships and union pathways in the skilled trades, aligning with long-standing Democratic priorities on labor and workforce development.
+Potentially reduces reliance on high-interest debt for short-term credentials, complementing efforts to ease student loan burdens.
+Bipartisan, practical reform that can pass and deliver tangible help to veterans, mid-career workers, and lower-credentialed learners.
+Enhances equity across learning pathways by giving nondegree learners similar tax-preferred treatment that degree-seeking students already receive.
MIGHT OPPOSE
Tax benefits from 529 plans disproportionately accrue to higher-income families who have the means to save, raising distributional and equity concerns.
Adds to federal tax expenditures without an offset; the revenue loss could crowd out funding for need-based aid or direct workforce investments.
Despite guardrails, the inclusion of Secretary-designated programs and industry accreditors may not fully prevent low-quality or predatory credentials from qualifying.
Risks subsidizing and entrenching occupational licensing regimes that can act as barriers to entry, especially for immigrants and workers moving across states.
State nonconformity could create a confusing patchwork of tax treatment and administrative hurdles for families and plan administrators.
Opportunity cost: rather than using the tax code, Democrats might prefer expanding Pell Grants to high-quality short-term programs or investing directly in public workforce systems and community colleges.
Employers often require credentials for jobs; subsidizing those costs via 529s may shift costs from employers to taxpayers.

Republicans

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Empowers families with more choice and flexibility to use their own savings for in-demand skills, not just traditional four-year degrees.
+Strengthens the skilled trades and noncollege pathways that align with a work-first, apprenticeship-friendly approach to workforce development.
+Relies on existing quality frameworks (state WIOA lists, VA, DOL-registered apprenticeships) instead of creating a new federal program or bureaucracy.
+Supports servicemembers and veterans by aligning eligible programs with DoD COOL and VA directories, easing transition to civilian careers.
+Encourages private saving and personal responsibility rather than new direct federal spending; a market-oriented approach to human capital.
+Addresses workforce shortages in licensed professions and technical fields by lowering the cost of entry and maintenance of credentials.
MIGHT OPPOSE
Expands the scope and complexity of the tax code and increases a tax expenditure, which fiscal conservatives may oppose absent offsets or broader tax reform.
Involves federal agencies in determining what counts as a recognized program or credential, inviting bureaucratic discretion and potential politicization.
Could unintentionally subsidize and reinforce occupational licensing regimes that many Republicans view as restrictive to economic freedom and competition.
Risk of program abuse or credential inflation if providers respond to subsidized demand by raising prices for exams and continuing education.
Administrative complexity for families and 529 plan administrators, especially if states do not promptly conform their tax codes.
Selectively advantages certain training models over others, potentially distorting the market for skills development.

History

Feb 07, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Feb 07, 2025
Introduced in House
Feb 07, 2025
Introduced in House