- The concept of universal basic income (UBI) was once deemed politically unfeasible. The ideas of Andrew Yang and the impact of COVID-19 changed that narrative.
- Basic income initiatives are gaining momentum, providing financial assistance to families in need.
- Nevertheless, both Democrats and Republicans are locked in a political standoff regarding these initiatives.
As interest in universal basic income grows across the United States, the political landscape surrounding it remains polarized.
A universal basic income involves the government distributing a payment to every citizen — without any conditions or restrictions — aimed at supplementing, not replacing, their income.
This idea isn’t new, but its feasibility became evident during the pandemic when the government issued several payments to the majority of the populace, referred to as “stimulus checks.” Additionally, leaders in the technology sector have been vocal in supporting the idea, anticipating job losses caused by advancements in artificial intelligence. Outside the U.S., certain countries have already implemented versions of universal and guaranteed basic income.
Though a national UBI program might still be distant in the U.S., various city and state communities have begun testing a similar concept known as guaranteed basic income.
These initiatives provide financial assistance to specific demographic groups, like low-income individuals or mothers, for a limited duration. Participants are free to spend this money as they see fit.
However, even these localized initiatives face political pushback.
Below is a closer look at the political influences shaping the conversation around universal and guaranteed basic income programs.
The rise of basic income programs
Over the past decade, UBI has entered mainstream discussions.
Entrepreneurs and tech leaders like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg expressed support for UBI in 2016 and 2017, respectively, in light of the potential disruption caused by automation in the workforce. Conversely, Joe Biden, then serving as vice president, stated in 2017 that there exists “a better way forward” than a guaranteed government check without conditions.
During the 2020 presidential race, Democratic candidate Andrew Yang, who is a tech entrepreneur, intrigued many when he asserted that his administration would implement a universal basic income of $1,000 monthly for every adult, a policy he referred to as “The Freedom Dividend.” Yang argued this was crucial to support American workers facing automation and growing inequality.
At that time, many regarded Yang’s aspirations as unrealistic and possibly alarmist. His campaign quickly lost momentum.
AP Photo/Phil Long
However, a couple of years later, the COVID-19 pandemic forced many Americans into their homes and resulted in widespread job losses. Suddenly, Yang’s concept of universal basic income appeared more plausible.
“I certainly never anticipated that I would suspend my campaign in February, only for the agreement to come out in March to pay Americans $1,000 a month,” Yang shared with Politico in March 2020 following the announcement of stimulus checks by the Trump administration.
The federal government, first during the Trump administration and then the Biden administration, disbursed three rounds of stimulus checks ranging from $600 to $1,400 for adults, along with additional payments for children in each family. Over $800 billion was allocated from 2020 to 2021, helping to lift around 3 million children out of poverty.
The apparent effectiveness of these stimulus checks motivated advocacy groups and various local governments to implement similar measures on a smaller scale, resulting in the emergence of the many guaranteed basic income programs now present in the U.S.
One of the largest of these programs was partly funded by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who has advocated for some form of basic income to mitigate the risks posed by artificial intelligence to American jobs. This program provided $1,000 a month to 1,000 participants and $50 a month to another 2,000 (the control group) across multiple states over a three-year period.
Participants who received these cash payments described experiencing “greater agency to make decisions that best suited their lives,” which impacted their housing situations, healthcare decisions, and savings.
The political challenges to basic income programs
However, not everyone supports these small-scale basic income initiatives.
Basic income programs are often followed by studies evaluating their effectiveness. Many participants report enhanced housing and food security during the program and indicate they can secure better jobs or pursue further education as a result.
Nonetheless, resistance to universal and guaranteed basic income has been vigorous in certain areas. Since the pandemic, Republican critics have primarily led the opposition, while Democrats have largely been among the staunchest advocates for UBI.
Republicans opposing universal basic income often cite concerns about the financial burden of running these programs and the message they send to workers. Some conservative lawmakers label these initiatives as “socialist” handouts, expressing worries that they might deter recipients from seeking employment.
Last year, Arizona Republicans voted to prohibit basic income programs in the state, with similar resistance surfacing in Iowa, Texas, and South Dakota. Lawmakers in various states contend that although these checks are provided only temporarily, they could foster increased reliance on government assistance.
“This represents socialism on steroids. It’s a redistribution of wealth and an affront to American values,” Iowa State Rep. Steve Holt stated in 2024 while advocating for a statewide ban on guaranteed basic income programs.
Critics have also raised concerns regarding the targeted nature of the payments, some of which are directed towards specific populations based on race or identity.
A conservative organization recently filed a lawsuit to halt a San Francisco basic income initiative from distributing payments to 55 at-risk transgender individuals. This initiative accepted applicants who are trans, nonbinary, gender nonconforming, or intersex and prioritized those identifying as Black, Indigenous, or persons of color. Judicial Watch, a conservative legal advocacy group, claimed in its lawsuit that the program violated California’s equal protection clause.
Another conservative lawsuit targeted the Abundant Birth Project, a basic-income initiative in San Francisco that awarded pregnant Black women $1,000 monthly, arguing that it was discriminatory as it allocated taxpayer funds based on unlawful classifications, including race.
