Which states have passed legislation to extend ACA-like subsidies after 2025?

1. Congressional, not state, action dominates the reporting

National outlets and policy shops in the search set frame the problem as one for Congress: lawmakers are debating short extensions, multi‑year extensions, or permanent fixes to the enhanced premium tax credits created under ARPA and extended by the Inflation Reduction Act through 2025 ^{[4] [3]}. Reuters reports White House and Senate activity on extension proposals rather than state laws stepping in ^[1]. NPR and Axios coverage likewise focuses on federal proposals and Senate timing, including bipartisan and centrist frameworks for two‑year extensions with guardrails or caps ^{[2] [3]}.

2. No evidence in these sources that states have enacted their own permanent ACA‑style subsidies

The supplied results include detailed federal and state impact analyses (KFF, CT Mirror, Harvard) and trackers of Congressional proposals, but none of the items list states that have passed their own statutory programs to replicate the ARPA/IRA enhancements for 2026 ^{[5] [7] [8]}. Available sources do not mention any state passing standalone laws to extend the enhanced premium tax credits after 2025.

3. Why states might be constrained even if they wanted to act

Policy briefs and trackers describe the enhanced tax credits as federal income‑tax‑credit mechanisms delivered through the IRS and reconciled on tax returns; that delivery mechanism complicates state‑level workarounds because states would either need to (a) create state tax credits to offset new federal costs or (b) subsidize enrollees directly through state budgets — both expensive options outlined by policy analysts ^{[4] [9]}. The Conference Board and Bipartisan Policy Center note that letting federal enhancements lapse will shift costs to households and potentially to state systems, but they emphasize federal policy choices as primary levers ^{[9] [10]}.

4. Measured estimates of the pain if nothing changes

Multiple sources quantify the size of the shock: KFF estimates average marketplace premium payments would more than double if enhanced credits expire, and Harvard Kennedy School and Connecticut reporting use similar, state‑level projections of large premium increases and enrollment effects ^{[5] [6] [7]}. The CRFB tracker and analyses cite federal fiscal figures showing the enhanced credits’ rising cost and underline why Congress is pressured to act before open‑enrollment deadlines ^{[8] [4]}.

5. Political fault lines and possible federal compromises

Coverage documents a partisan split: Democrats pressed for permanent extensions and linked the subsidies to other spending measures, while many Republicans demand limits or alternative plans with income caps and “pay‑fors”; centrist proposals include two‑year extensions with eligibility caps that lawmakers across the aisle are weighing ^{[11] [3] [12]}. Reuters and NPR report the White House and Senate activity toward short‑term extensions or revised eligibility criteria ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Reporting gaps and what to watch next

The supplied search results focus on federal proposals, analysis of impacts, and political negotiations; they do not report any state statutes creating ACA‑style subsidy extensions beyond 2025. For confirmation whether any states later enacted local substitutes, one should check state legislatures, state insurance regulators, and state exchange announcements — those are not covered in the current set of sources (available sources do not mention state enactments) ^{[5] [7]}.

7. Bottom line — immediate practical implications

Unless Congress enacts an extension or the White House and lawmakers reach a deal, federal enhanced premium tax credits scheduled to end Dec. 31, 2025 will lapse, reverting subsidy rules and creating significant premium increases for many enrollees; current reporting shows this is being addressed at the federal level, not by state statutes in the provided material ^{[4] [5] [6]}.