John Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Retirement Savings for Americans Act of 2025
A Democratic bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Retirement Savings for Americans Act of 2025 establishes the American Worker Retirement Fund to help working Americans build wealth. It focuses on "qualifying workers," such as those without existing employer retirement plans or eligible self-employed independent contractors. The bill creates a system of automatic enrollment through employers and provides a government match tax credit to incentivize savings. A dedicated Investment Board and Executive Director will manage the fund's assets. Participants can choose from various investment options or rely on a default life-cycle fund.
Yes· 3 of 26
- Scored +8
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly incentivizes savings via government matches and protects eligibility for other public benefits.
- Scored +7
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Allows young workers without employer plans to begin saving early with government matching.
- Scored +7
Would farmers be better off under this?
Allows self-employed independent contractors to participate in a subsidized retirement fund.
The opposite· 3 of 10
- Scored -5
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
Excluded from the primary benefit (Government Match Tax Credit) due to income phaseouts.
- Scored -5
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Excluded from benefits and potentially subject to forced distributions.
- Scored -5
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Excluded from benefits and subject to forced distributions.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Increased Retirement Savings: The bill creates a retirement fund specifically for workers who do not have access to existing employer-sponsored plans (Section 2).
- Government Financial Support: Eligible individuals can receive a Government Match Tax Credit, which is deposited directly into their retirement accounts (Section 301).
- Protection of Public Benefits: For individuals under age 65, funds in these accounts and government contributions are not counted when determining eligibility for Federal public assistance benefits (Section 4).
- Automatic Participation: The auto-enrollment process helps workers begin saving 3 percent of their compensation without needing to manually sign up (Section 104(b)).
- Flexibility for Independent Contractors: The bill allows self-employed independent contractors to participate in the fund (Section 2).
- Financial Security for Survivors: The bill includes spousal protections and survivor rights to ensure funds are handled correctly upon a participant's death (Section 109).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Loss of Funds for Early Withdrawals: If a government match contribution does not stay in the fund for at least 6 months, the credit amount is forfeited and returned to the Treasury (Section 301(h)).
- Forced Distributions: Participants may be forced to take a distribution from the fund if their gross income exceeds a specific dollar threshold (Section 106(j)).
- Tax Burdens on Involuntary Distributions: If a forced distribution is paid directly to the participant rather than rolled over, it is treated as an early distribution, which may carry tax penalties (Section 106(j)(4)).
- Investment Risk: The fund is subject to net losses from investments, which would reduce the total amount in a participant's account (Section 2).
- Employer Penalties: Businesses that fail to enroll qualifying workers or fail to deposit contributions face penalties ranging from 2 percent to 10 percent of the failed amount (Section 104(c)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly incentivizes savings via government matches and protects eligibility for other public benefits. Would farmers be better off under this? — Allows self-employed independent contractors to participate in a subsidized retirement fund. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Allows young workers without employer plans to begin saving early with government matching. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Targets workers without employer-sponsored plans, a gap often higher in this demographic. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Increases retirement security for workers in sectors where employer plans are less common. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Provides a mechanism for those who missed earlier retirement savings to accumulate wealth. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Increases wealth accumulation opportunities for individuals in underserved labor markets. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Protects retirement account balances from affecting eligibility for Federal public assistance benefits. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Offers a path to retirement savings for those in non-traditional or small-scale employment. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides an additional retirement vehicle and potential government match for those without corporate plans. Would retired people be better off under this? — Increases the total retirement pool for future retirees entering the system. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Supports self-employed workers and those in small rural businesses without retirement plans. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Ensures long-term financial security for those reaching retirement age without traditional pensions. Would women be better off under this? — Helps close the gender retirement gap by providing portable and subsidized savings. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Provides a subsidized retirement option for independent contractors and small business employees. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Provides retirement security regardless of employment type or employer plan availability. Would men be better off under this? — Provides additional retirement savings opportunities. Would students be better off under this? — Allows early entry into retirement savings via auto-enrollment upon starting employment. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Provides retirement access for the large number of service and gig workers in urban areas. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Provides an additional retirement vehicle if they are working as independent contractors or in small businesses. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Provides retirement benefits for white workers in small businesses without plans. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Excluded from benefits and subject to forced distributions. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Excluded from the primary benefit (Government Match Tax Credit) due to income phaseouts. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Excluded from benefits and potentially subject to forced distributions. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases administrative burden and introduces penalties for non-compliance with enrollment. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High earners are phased out of the government match credit and face forced distributions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Helps low-income workers build assets without disqualifying them from Federal public assistance benefits. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Provides retirement access and government matching for workers who lack employer-sponsored plans, often disproportionately affecting marginalized groups.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Encourages long-term capital accumulation and wealth building for a large segment of the workforce. Does this cut taxes for middle-income families? — Provides a Government Match Tax Credit for eligible workers, though it functions as a retirement deposit rather than a direct tax reduction. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Increases federal spending to provide matching contributions for worker retirement accounts. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Creates a new government expenditure through the Government Match Tax Credit funded by the Treasury. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Introduces new federal financial obligations without a specified funding source other than the Treasury. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Imposes administrative burdens and penalties on businesses that fail to properly enroll qualifying workers.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes a new federal retirement fund, board, and executive director with broad regulatory and subpoena authority. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Creates a federal standard for retirement enrollment that applies to businesses engaging in interstate commerce.
- 5/13/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 4/30/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Christopher CoonsDemocrat · Delaware
Tim SheehyRepublican · Montana
Thomas TillisRepublican · North Carolina