More Paid Leave Act: Offers States Grants for 6-Week Parental Leave, Sets Up Interstate Coordination Network

The "More Paid Leave for More Americans Act" proposes a new federal grant program to encourage states to establish or expand paid family leave. Under the bill, states that set up programs providing at least six weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child could receive federal funds, with individual benefits calculated on a sliding scale based on income. The core idea, as outlined in Title I, is to foster a public-private partnership model at the state level, supported by federal dollars and a new system for coordinating leave across state lines detailed in Title II.

States Get a Nudge (and Cash) for Paid Leave

This bill isn't creating a national paid leave program directly. Instead, it sets up the "State Paid Family Leave Public-Private Partnership Grant Program" (SEC. 101). States that already have a paid family leave law, or enact one, can apply for these federal grants, which range from $1.5 million to $7 million. To get the cash, state programs must meet certain minimums: provide at least six weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a new child, and cap weekly benefits at 150% of the state's average weekly wage. The leave must be taken within 12 months of the child's arrival.

How much an employee receives would depend on their earnings. According to SEC. 101(d)(2):

• If an employee's earnings are at or below the poverty line (as defined by section 673 of the Community Services Block Grant Act for a 4-person household), they'd get 67% of their average weekly earnings.
• If they earn more than the poverty line but less than double that amount, the replacement rate is 67% minus a portion (17%) of how much their earnings exceed that poverty threshold.
• For all other eligible employees, the rate is 50%. So, someone earning less would generally see a higher percentage of their wages replaced. States would also need to establish a "covered partnership" – which SEC. 103 defines as the state working with a private entity to offer paid leave, or allowing employers to self-administer their own plans if they meet or exceed state requirements. Grant money can be used for various purposes, from start-up costs and paying benefits to public outreach and purchasing software (SEC. 101(g)).

Untangling the Web: Paid Leave Across State Lines

If you've ever worked in one state and lived in another, or moved jobs across state lines, you know benefits can get complicated. Title II of the bill tries to tackle this by establishing the Interstate Paid Leave Action Network (IPLAN) (SEC. 202). The goal is to create an interstate agreement that makes benefit delivery easier, reduces administrative headaches for employers, and coordinates how state programs work together. This IPLAN agreement would aim for a single policy standard across participating states, including common definitions for things like a "benefit week," "employee eligibility," and how to handle intermittent leave. It would also push for a single administrative standard for processes like collecting payroll contributions and notifying employees about leave availability.

A key feature is creating a single process for state programs to handle claims for individuals with work history in multiple participating states (SEC. 202(b)(3)). To help get IPLAN running, the Secretary of Labor would award a grant to a "national intermediary" – a non-governmental organization with experience in such systems – to support IPLAN's activities, including developing a standardized tech system for interstate claims (SEC. 203). States can also get "conforming grants" and "implementation grants" (between $1.5 million and $8 million each) to participate in IPLAN and adopt its agreement (SEC. 204).

The Price Tag: Where's the Money Coming From?

These new grant programs aren't funded from thin air. SEC. 104 details how the bill proposes to pay for the initiatives in Title I. It involves rescinding (taking back) funds from other areas: a $10 million reduction in funds allocated for certain tariff act enforcement actions, removing an exception that allows appropriated funds for some Department of Defense golf courses, and terminating specific government procurement contracts (identified by Procurement Instrument Identifier GS03F047CA), with any unspent funds from those contracts being rescinded.

Following these rescissions, the bill authorizes specific appropriations for the grant programs. For the Title I state paid leave grants, this includes $39,787,500 for fiscal year 2026, growing to $145,887,500 for fiscal year 2028 (SEC. 104(f)). Title II (IPLAN) activities also get dedicated funding, with up to $8.8 million annually from 2026-2028 for the national intermediary and up to roughly $70.6 million annually for state grants related to IPLAN participation (SEC. 205). To ensure accountability, states receiving grants must report annually on fund usage and impact, the Secretary of Labor must report to Congress, and the Department of Labor's Inspector General is mandated to conduct annual audits of grantee states to identify any "waste, fraud, or abuse" (SEC. 102).

The Fine Print: Who Qualifies and What Are the Hurdles?

Even if a state sets up a program with these federal grants, not everyone automatically qualifies for the leave. The definition of an "eligible employee" in SEC. 103 mirrors the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) standards: an employee must have been with their employer for at least 12 months and worked at least 1,250 hours for that employer in the past 12 months. This means some newer employees, part-time workers, or those with irregular hours might not be covered.

The bill acts as an incentive for states to create or improve paid leave programs. For employers, especially those operating in multiple states, a successful IPLAN could simplify administrative burdens. However, the bill also presents potential challenges. States must choose to participate and develop sustainable funding plans, as the bill prioritizes states whose financing mechanisms don't "heavily rely on Federal funding" (SEC. 101(c)(1)(C)). The effectiveness of the "covered partnership" model will depend on how states implement it with private insurers or manage employer self-administered plans. Furthermore, the success of IPLAN hinges on broad state adoption and genuine cooperation; states need to participate in IPLAN "in good faith" to receive certain grants (SEC. 204(a)(2)(A)(ii)), a term that could be open to interpretation. It's also worth noting that the Title I grants are specifically for leave related to the "birth or adoption of a child" (SEC. 101(d)(1)(A)), while IPLAN's definition of "qualifying reason" for paid leave in Title II is broader, referencing FMLA reasons which include caring for a seriously ill family member or an employee's own serious health condition (SEC. 201(7)). This suggests the primary grants push parental leave, though states can always offer more comprehensive benefits.