- Universal basic income was once thought politically impossible. Then came Andrew Yang and COVID-19.
- Basic income programs are now gaining traction, offering payments to struggling families.
- Many Democrats and Republicans, however, are engaged in a political tug-of-war over the programs.
While the idea of a universal basic income is gaining traction in the United States, the politics around it remain divided.
A universal basic income is when the government cuts a check to the entire population — with no strings or limitations attached — to support (but not replace) their income.
It’s not a new concept, but the feasibility of a universal basic income became more apparent during the pandemic when the government sent several payments to most of the population, known as “stimulus checks.” The idea has also been heavily promoted by tech industry leaders, who anticipate possible job losses with the onset of artificial intelligence. Outside the United States, there are already some countries with universal basic income and guaranteed basic income programs.
While a national UBI program may still be a long way off in the United States, communities on the city and state levels have begun experimenting with a version called a guaranteed basic income.
In these programs, money is given to participants who comprise smaller population groups, like low-income people or mothers, for a limited time. Those residents can still spend the money however they want.
Even these localized basic income programs, however, are coming up against political opposition.
Here’s a look at the politics driving the debate about universal and guaranteed basic income programs.
The rise of basic income programs
In the last decade, UBI has edged its way into the national vernacular.
Entrepreneurs and tech executives like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg voiced support for UBI in 2016 and 2017, respectively, citing the impact automation would have on the job force. Meanwhile, Joe Biden, then the vice president, wrote in 2017 that there was “a better way forward” than “some type of guaranteed government check with no strings attached.”
During the 2020 presidential election campaign, Democratic candidate Andrew Yang, a tech entrepreneur, raised eyebrows when he proclaimed that, if elected, his administration would provide a universal basic income of $1,000 a month for every adult, a policy he called “The Freedom Dividend.” Yang said this was necessary to support American workers threatened by automation and inequality.
At the time, many dismissed Yang’s predictions as a pipe dream at best and fear-mongering at worst. His candidacy quickly faded.
AP Photo/Phil Long
Then, a few years later, the COVID-19 pandemic forced most Americans home and many of them out of work. Suddenly, Yang’s idea for a universal basic income became less outlandish.
“Certainly I never imagined that I would suspend my campaign in February and then we would agree to pay $1,000 a month to Americans in March,” Yang told Politico in March 2020 after the Trump administration announced it intended to disperse stimulus checks.
The federal government, first under President Donald Trump and then President Joe Biden, sent three stimulus checks ranging from $600 to $1,400 for adults and additional payments for each child in a family. Over $800 billion in funds were disbursed from 2020 to 2021, lifting some 3 million children out of poverty.
The apparent success of the stimulus checks inspired advocacy groups and local and city governments to begin trying them on a smaller scale, giving rise to the numerous guaranteed basic income programs in the United States seen today.
One of the largest of these programs was funded in part by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who has advocated for some kind of basic income to alleviate the threat of artificial intelligence to US workers. The program distributed $1,000 a month to 1,000 people and $50 a month to another 2,000 (the control group) across multiple states over the course of three years.
Those who received the cash payments reported “greater agency to make decisions that worked best for their lives,” including their living situations, healthcare decisions, and savings.
The political challenges to basic income programs
Not everyone, however, is on board with the small-scale basic income programs.
Basic income programs are often accompanied by studies that examine their success. Many participants report improved housing and food security during the program and say they can find better jobs or pursue a higher level of education as a result.
Yet opposition to universal and guaranteed basic income has been fierce in some places. Post-pandemic, the resistance to UBI has been mostly spearheaded by Republicans, while Democrats have typically been among UBI’s most ardent supporters.
Republicans who talk about the cons of universal basic income often mention the cost of running the programs and the precedent they set for workers. Some conservative lawmakers have criticized the programs as “socialist” handouts and expressed concern that they could discourage recipients from working.
Last year, Republicans in Arizona voted to ban basic income programs in the state, and similar opposition efforts gained traction in Iowa, Texas, and South Dakota. Lawmakers in several states have argued that the checks, though distributed only for a limited time, would increase reliance on the government.
“This is socialism on steroids. This is a redistribution of wealth. This is an attack on American values,” Iowa State Rep. Steve Holt said in 2024 while advocating for a statewide block to guaranteed basic income programs.
Some critics also point to the targeted nature of the payments, some of which have been used to support specific populations based on race or identity.
A conservative group last year sued to stop a San Francisco basic income program from sending payments to 55 vulnerable trans residents. The initiative accepted trans, nonbinary, gender nonconforming, and intersex applicants and prioritized those who are Black, Indigenous, or people of color. Judicial Watch, a conservative legal activist group, said in its lawsuit that the program violated the equal protection clause of the California constitution.
Another conservative lawsuit targeted the Abundant Birth Project, a basic-income program also in San Francisco that gave pregnant Black women $1,000 a month, calling it discriminatory because it used taxpayer money to provide the payments based on unlawful classifications, including race.
