Universal Basic Income and the U.S. Evidence

What Is Universal Basic Income

Universal basic income, or UBI, is a regular cash payment to every member of a community, with no work requirement and no limits on how the money is spent. The Stanford Basic Income Lab defines it as “universal, unconditional, individual, regular and cash.” No U.S. government pays a monthly basic income. Alaska’s yearly dividend to every resident is the closest example, and most U.S. programs called basic income are guaranteed income pilots, which pay only people below an income line.

Basic Income, Guaranteed Income, and Other Cash Aid

Four kinds of cash aid get called basic income, and they differ in who gets paid and whether the payment shrinks as income rises. The difference matters, because most of the U.S. evidence comes from targeted pilots, not from a universal payment.

Guaranteed income is what most cities and counties have tested since 2019. The Stanford Basic Income Lab defines it as an unconditional, periodic cash payment “targeted to specific residents within a community, typically those below some income threshold.” A negative income tax pays the most to people with no earnings and less as they earn more, so it reaches the same people as a targeted payment but through the tax code.

When a Republican President Proposed an Income Floor

The idea has a bipartisan past, and the argument over work is as old as the idea. On August 8, 1969, President Richard Nixon went on national television to propose ending the main welfare program for families and replacing it with a federal payment. “What I am proposing is that the Federal Government build a foundation under the income of every American family with dependent children that cannot care for itself,” he said. A family of four with no other income would get $1,600 a year, and families could keep the first $60 a month of earnings without losing any benefit (American Presidency Project).

In the same speech, Nixon drew the line that still divides the debate. His plan included a work requirement, and he said it was “not a ‘guaranteed income.’” He opposed a guaranteed income, he said, because it “would undermine the incentive to work.”

The government then did something unusual: it tested the question. Federal agencies ran income experiments in several states in the late 1960s and 1970s. The largest, in Seattle and Denver, measured exactly how much people cut their work when they got a guaranteed floor.

What U.S. Cash Studies Found

In the U.S. studies below, cash reduced work modestly, and its gains for health and well-being often faded. A 2018 review of U.S. unconditional cash programs by economist Ioana Marinescu found that “a 10% income increase induced by an unconditional cash transfer decreases labor supply by about 1%,” and that many studies find no significant effect on whether people work at all (NBER).

The table lists what each major U.S. study measured. Each row comes from the study’s own published results.

A trial of mothers and newborns found few of the hoped-for gains. The Baby’s First Years trial, which paid $333 a month to low-income mothers from their child’s birth, found after four years that the cash “did not improve maternal mental health, maternal or child BMI, or maternal report of children’s health.” A 2025 follow-up found no significant improvement in mothers’ reports of economic hardship, although mothers who got the larger payment did more enriching activities with their children. An earlier paper found no detectable difference in whether those mothers worked, though the cash appears to have reduced their hours during the height of the pandemic in 2020 and 2021.

A $1,000 Monthly Test Over Three Years

The OpenResearch study tested steady, sizable cash in a large randomized trial that ran three years. Its authors call it one of the most comprehensive efforts to date to trace what cash does in people’s daily lives (OpenResearch). From November 2020 to October 2023, 1,000 low-income adults ages 21 to 40 got $1,000 a month, while 2,000 people in a control group got $50 a month (NBER).

Recipients kept most of the money as added income. For every dollar they received, their other income fell by about 16 cents, derived from the study’s figures of $12,000 a year in cash and about $1,900 less in other income (NBER). Their partners also worked less, by a similar amount.

The researchers found no improvement in job quality, and their confidence intervals “can rule out even small improvements.” The largest increase in recipients’ time use was leisure (NBER). The transfer raised credit scores and self-reported financial health but left net worth near zero, because new assets were offset by new debt (NBER).

Health gains faded. The cash produced “large but short-lived improvements in stress and food security” and more hospital, emergency and dental visits. It “did not improve self-reported physical health, clinical biomarkers, or mental health after the first year” (NBER). The authors’ overall judgment is a “moderate labor supply effect that does not appear offset by other productive activities” (NBER).

Employment rose for both groups during the study, as the economy recovered. According to OpenResearch, 58% of recipients had jobs at enrollment and 72% at the end, compared with 59% and 74% in the control group.

What the 1970s Experiments Measured

The Seattle and Denver experiments found larger work reductions, from a much more generous floor. The plans averaged a guarantee of about 115% of the poverty line, with an effective tax rate of about 50% on earnings. Measured in the second year, after families had adjusted, hours worked fell by these amounts (HHS ASPE).

Drop in Yearly Hours Worked in the Seattle and Denver Experiments, Percent

Category	Value
Husbands	9%
Wives	20%
Female family heads	14%

Source: HHS ASPE overview of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment final report, second-year results.

The same report notes that the five-year group cut hours more than the three-year group, which suggests a permanent program would draw a larger response than a short test. It also warns that dropouts and misreported income could bias the results. Those cautions apply to today’s short pilots too.

What a National UBI Would Cost

A universal payment to every adult would cost trillions of dollars a year. The Census Bureau counted 267.0 million adults 18 and older in 2024. Paying each of them $1,000 a month comes to about $3.2 trillion a year, and $500 a month to about $1.6 trillion.

That figure is the gross cost, the most such a plan could spend. It assumes every adult gets the full amount and that no program is replaced and no tax recovers any of it. A plan could tax the payment back from higher earners or fold in existing programs, which would change both the cost and who comes out ahead. Any plan’s net cost depends on those choices, so the gross figure is a starting point for comparing proposals.

State Bans, Court Fights, and Pilots in 2026

No federal basic income exists, and several states have moved to stop local pilots. The timeline shows the policy’s U.S. path, from Nixon’s proposal to the 2025 end of the largest county pilot.

1. 1969 Nixon proposes an income floor A $1,600 federal payment for a family of four, with a work requirement.
2. 1982 Alaska pays its first dividend Every resident gets a yearly share of oil-fund earnings.
3. 2019 Stockton starts SEED 125 residents get $500 a month for two years.
4. 2020 The $1,000 study begins 1,000 adults in Illinois and Texas start three years of payments.
5. 2021 Monthly child tax credit Child poverty falls to a record low 5.2% for the year.
6. 2024 Three states ban local pilots South Dakota, Idaho and Iowa bar local guaranteed income programs.
7. 2025 Harris County ends its pilot Commissioners end the program after Texas Supreme Court orders.

Sources: American Presidency Project; NBER; SEED; OpenResearch and Census Bureau P60-280; state legislatures; The Leader.

Cash Aid Without Conditions in the U.S., 1969 to 2025: 1969: Nixon proposes an income floor (A $1,600 federal payment for a family of four, with a work requirement.). 1982: Alaska pays its first dividend (Every resident gets a yearly share of oil-fund earnings.). 2019: Stockton starts SEED (125 residents get $500 a month for two years.). 2020: The $1,000 study begins (1,000 adults in Illinois and Texas start three years of payments.). 2021: Monthly child tax credit (Child poverty falls to a record low 5.2% for the year.). 2024: Three states ban local pilots (South Dakota, Idaho and Iowa bar local guaranteed income programs.). 2025: Harris County ends its pilot (Commissioners end the program after Texas Supreme Court orders.).

1969: Nixon proposed a federal floor under family incomes, with a work requirement, in a national address.

1982: Alaska began paying every resident an annual dividend from its Permanent Fund. The 2025 dividend was $1,000, and the state announced a 2026 amount of $1,200, including a $200 energy relief payment (Alaska Department of Revenue).

2019: Stockton, California, launched SEED, the first mayor-led guaranteed income pilot. In its first year, full-time employment among recipients rose from 28% to 40%, compared with 32% to 37% in the control group (SEED). The evaluators caution that 125 people “cannot point to larger labor market trends.”

2020: The OpenResearch study began paying 1,000 adults in Illinois and Texas.

2021: The expanded child tax credit sent families half the credit in six monthly payments from July to December, and child poverty fell to a record low of 5.2% (OpenResearch). The Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure shows child poverty “more than doubled” to 12.4% in 2022, after full refundability expired (Census Bureau).

2024: South Dakota, Idaho and Iowa enacted bans on local guaranteed income programs, and Harris County, Texas, saw its pilot halted in court.

2025: Harris County’s Commissioners Court voted to end the program and move the remaining money to rental aid, homelessness services and food programs (The Leader).

The Harris County fight shows how the legal argument works. The county planned to pay $500 a month for 18 months to as many as 1,900 households in its 10 highest-poverty ZIP codes (The Leader), using $20.5 million in federal pandemic funds (Houston Landing), and more than 82,000 people applied (NPR via WSIU). The state sued, citing the gift clause in the Texas Constitution. In June 2024 the Texas Supreme Court kept the payments on hold, writing that “the State has raised serious doubt about the constitutionality of the Uplift Harris program” (FOX 26 Houston). The county then redesigned it as debit cards limited to food, housing and utilities, and the state appealed again (Houston Landing).

Where State Guaranteed Income Rules Stand

As of September 25, 2026

• Iowa ban on local programs (HF 2319) Law

  Signed May 1, 2024, as Acts chapter 1109. (source)

• Idaho ban (H 572) Law

  Signed March 28, 2024, and in effect since July 1, 2024. (source)

• South Dakota ban on county, township and city programs (SB 115) Law, work programs exempt

  Signed March 6, 2024. The ban does not cover payments tied to work, job search or training. (source)

• Wisconsin and Arizona bans Ended, vetoed

  Both legislatures passed bans that their Democratic governors vetoed, NPR reported in May 2024. (source)

• Harris County, Texas, pilot Ended

  Commissioners voted in June 2025 to end it after the Texas Supreme Court kept payments on hold. (source)

• Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Law

  The 2026 dividend is $1,200, including a $200 energy relief payment, announced September 21, 2026. (source)

Source: Iowa Legislature; Idaho Legislature; South Dakota Session Laws; NPR; The Leader; Alaska Department of Revenue

NPR also reported that Arkansas had banned such programs. Harish Patel of the Economic Security Project, which advocates for guaranteed income, told NPR the push was led by the lobbying arm of the Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative think tank that did not make anyone available for an interview (NPR via WSIU).

The Debate Over Basic Income

Both sides cite the same studies and read the numbers differently.

The case against rests on work and cost. The OpenResearch authors concluded that the labor supply effect “does not appear offset by other productive activities,” such as more schooling or better jobs. A universal payment would also cost trillions of dollars a year, as the calculation above shows. In Texas, state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, who urged the lawsuit against Harris County, put the legal objection plainly: “You just can’t give out money on the street like popcorn, you have to have a governmental reason.” He also argued that paying a few lottery winners is poor policy (NPR via WSIU).

The case for rests on the size of the work effect and on what cash buys. The same study shows recipients kept about 84 cents of every dollar as added income, and their spending rose most for housing, food and cars. Aditi Shrivastava of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities told NPR that the pilots are “helpful and effective for the families who need them,” and that people who are not working “may be taking care of family members” or “dealing with disabilities.” Alaska’s universal dividend did not reduce employment.

None of the studies above found that cash led most recipients to stop working. The dispute is over whether a modest drop in hours is a cost worth paying, and whether the benefits last long enough to justify the price.

What UBI Studies Leave Out

Every U.S. study tests something narrower than a true universal income. Keep these limits in mind:

• Pilots are temporary. People who know payments will end in two or three years may not change their lives the way they would under a permanent program. The 1970s experiments found bigger responses in the longer, five-year group.
• Most pilots are targeted. They pay low-income people, not everyone, so they test guaranteed income, not UBI.
• Timing clouds the results. The OpenResearch study ran through the pandemic and recovery, when jobs and prices moved sharply.
• Small studies can mislead. Stockton’s 125 recipients offer useful stories and early signals, not national estimates.
• Economy-wide effects are unknown. Paying everyone could change prices, wages and local spending in ways a pilot of 1,000 people cannot show. The Alaska study’s results were consistent with cash stimulating the local economy.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who would receive universal basic income?

Under a true UBI, every adult, and in some plans every resident, would get the same payment regardless of income or work. Most U.S. pilots instead pay only people below an income line, which makes them guaranteed income programs.

Is universal basic income coming to the United States?

No federal program exists or is scheduled. Alaska pays every resident a yearly dividend, and many cities have run short pilots, while Iowa, Idaho and South Dakota have banned local programs.

Do any countries have universal basic income?

Several countries have run experiments, including Kenya, Finland, Namibia, India and Canada, according to the Stanford Basic Income Lab. In the U.S., Alaska’s dividend is the closest example.

Does basic income make people stop working?

Most people keep working. In the OpenResearch study, $1,000 a month lowered labor market participation by 4.2 percentage points and cut work by 1 to 2 hours a week, while Alaska’s dividend had no effect on employment.

What does Elon Musk say about universal basic income?

Musk says AI will make a “universal high income” possible, not a basic one. In December 2025 he wrote on X that “there will be no poverty in the future,” and on April 17, 2026 he wrote that “Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI.” Neither post gives an amount or a way to pay for it.

What You Can Do

1. Check whether your city or county runs a pilot. The Stanford Basic Income Lab tracks guaranteed income programs and their evaluations.
2. Read the evaluation before you share a claim. Studies above have found both gains and null results. Ask what was measured, for how long, and against what control group.
3. Watch your state legislature. Iowa, Idaho and South Dakota banned local programs in 2024, and similar bills have been introduced elsewhere. Testify or write your state lawmakers when one comes up.
4. Ask your members of Congress about cash for families. The 2021 child tax credit is the one national test of monthly cash. Ask where they stand on bringing back monthly payments. Find your representatives.