What legislative proposals in Congress aim to extend or make permanent the enhanced ACA subsidies?
Executive summary
Congressional activity at the start of 2026 centers on competing legislative paths to keep the enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits alive: Democrats pushed a three‑year extension that moved toward a House floor vote via a discharge petition [1] [2], Republicans proposed alternatives that would rework subsidies into different spending priorities such as health savings accounts [3] [4], and a handful of bipartisan moderates in both chambers have been negotiating potential compromises even as votes in the Senate failed in December [5] [6].
1. Democratic three‑year extension in the House — the primary clear proposal
House Democrats authored a proposal to extend the enhanced premium tax credits for three years and used a discharge petition to force consideration after Speaker Mike Johnson declined to bring the bill up, a maneuver that succeeded in pushing the measure toward a floor vote [1] [2] [7], and Democratic leaders and moderates argued the three‑year plan would maintain affordability for millions of enrollees if enacted [4] [7].
2. Senate Democratic bill and the December votes that foreshadowed gridlock
Senate Democrats offered legislation mirroring the extension approach but met a filibuster threshold in December when a Democratic bill failed a procedural vote and could not reach 60 votes to proceed, a setback underscored by a 51‑48 procedural loss that left the floor without a clear path to enactment [5] [3].
3. Republican alternatives — offsets, HSAs, and a different vision for affordability
Republican proposals circulating in Congress did not simply mirror the Democratic extension; GOP plans advanced alternatives that would redirect resources toward mechanisms such as health savings accounts and other changes rather than renewing the ARPA‑era enhanced premium tax credits, and Republican leaders cited federal costs as a principal rationale for opposing an outright subsidy extension [4] [8] [3].
4. Centrist and bipartisan negotiating tracks — Collins, Moreno and House moderates
A cross‑party cohort of moderates — including Senators Susan Collins and Bernie Moreno and House moderates such as Brian Fitzpatrick and Tom Suozzi in reported meetings — engaged in quiet talks to craft a compromise that might resurrect at least some level of enhanced credits or a targeted fix, with participants characterizing the process as urgent but uncertain and warning some proposals would likely fail the Senate if put to a vote [6] [2] [9].
5. Executive‑branch signaling and policy context from prior laws
The Administration briefly floated a two‑year extension at one point but ultimately walked back that public pitch, reflecting fluid White House strategy as congressional negotiations continued [3], while the underlying enhanced premium tax credits originated in pandemic‑era legislation and an FY2022 reconciliation law that extended more generous subsidies through 2025 — a statutory baseline Congress must alter to make enhancements permanent or longer‑term [10].
6. Procedural vehicles, political calculus, and why permanence remains elusive
Lawmakers have deployed procedural tools — notably the House discharge petition led by Hakeem Jeffries — to force votes because leadership in both parties has been split on whether to adopt extensions or alternatives, and the Senate’s December failure on both a Democratic bill and a Republican counterproposal illustrated that even when proposals exist, neither side has mustered the supermajority or consensus to convert temporary enhancements into a permanent policy change [2] [5] [4].
7. What the proposals would mean and the practical stakes
Analysts and nonpartisan offices warned that letting the enhanced credits lapse would reintroduce the “subsidy cliff” and raise premiums sharply for many enrollees, consequences policy shops used to justify diverse legislative fixes ranging from multi‑year extensions to targeted state‑level responses, a practical backdrop that has shaped both the content of bills and the urgency of bipartisan talks [11] [12] [7].