FY27 Continuing Resolution and OMB Update: What Workforce Boards Need to Know

Congress is working to finalize a short-term funding plan as the start of the fiscal year approaches on October 1. Here’s the latest:

House Action on the FY27 Continuing Resolution

The House has passed a narrow FY27 continuing resolution (CR), H.R. 9770, which would extend current FY26 funding levels through December 11. The bill passed along party lines in the House on July 21, 2026. Lawmakers are now in recess.

Senate Agreement on a Parallel CR Framework

The Senate is advancing its own CR, also running through December 11. While the Senate’s CR text is not yet public, leaders have indicated that they have agreement on a short-term extension similar to the House approach. However, the Senate’s CR includes a number of additional policy provisions to garner the bipartisan support needed to clear the measure in the Senate.

Important OMB-Related Language in the Senate Version

The Senate’s version of the FY27 budget resolution includes specific language that would delay OMB’s ability to implement a final Uniform Grant Guidance regulation during the CR period. This matters because it would significantly impact OMB’s ability to revise federal grant guidance under its current proposed timeline. NAWB has previously reported on this and released a Toolkit. The Senate language signals growing Congressional scrutiny of OMB’s proposal.

For Workforce Boards, this means:

  • Increased Congressional scrutiny of OMB’s proposed changes
  • Possible limits on how OMB can finalize the Uniform Guidance rewrite
  • Clear Congressional interest in future federal grantmaking

What This Means for FY27 Workforce Funding

With both chambers aligned on passing a CR to keep the government operating:

  • FY27 will start at FY26 funding levels
  • Appropriations negotiations will resume after the election, pushing major decisions into late fall
  • Workforce Boards should expect level funding until Congress completes full-year appropriations
  • Advocacy remains essential and NAWB encourages its members to download our template letter to contact Congress today.

Why This Matters for Workforce Boards

The CR, if enacted, would keep the system stable for now, but the final decisions about FY27 funding and the future of federal grant rules are still ahead. Workforce Boards should be prepared to:

  • Communicate local impact to congressional offices
  • Highlight how stable and sufficient funding supports employers and jobseekers
  • Monitor OMB’s actions closely as the Uniform Guidance rewrite moves forward

NAWB will continue to track developments and provide updates as Congress advances the CR and begins full-year appropriations negotiations.

We Need Your Voice—And We Need It Now 

At a time when workforce boards are being asked to produce better outcomes with fewer resources, the federal government has proposed sweeping changes to the rules governing federal grants. 

The National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB) strongly opposes these proposed changes. 

Not because we oppose accountability. Quite the opposite. Workforce boards understand better than anyone that public dollars carry public trust. Every day, boards across the country are accountable to taxpayers, local elected officials, governors, state workforce agencies, federal partners, employers, and the workers who depend on us. We welcome oversight. We welcome transparency. We welcome responsible stewardship of federal funds. 

What we cannot support are regulations that increase administrative burden, associated compliance costs, and disruption of critical services all without providing any tangible benefits or improvements to the current regulatory framework for federal grant funding. 

If adopted as written, these proposed changes would make it harder for workforce boards—and virtually every organization or entity that receives federal grant funding directly or indirectly—to focus on the work Congress intended those dollars to accomplish. Instead of investing more time connecting workers to careers, helping employers address workforce shortages, supporting veterans, serving opportunity youth, strengthening apprenticeship programs, or responding to local economic challenges, organizations will be forced to devote even more time to navigating new compliance requirements, documenting routine activities, and managing additional administrative risk.  Here are just a few examples of how this may play out in practice: 

Employer Services 

Instead of spending time meeting with employers to understand hiring needs, business services staff would spend additional hours documenting expenditures, justifying payments, and responding to expanded oversight requirements. That means fewer employer visits, fewer customized hiring events, and slower responses to businesses trying to fill critical positions. 

Training Contracts 

Boards may become more cautious about entering into innovative training partnerships or multi-year contracts because of increased uncertainty surrounding grant administration and changing award conditions. Programs that help employers quickly upskill workers could take longer to launch—or never move forward at all.  

Professional Development 

If conference attendance, professional memberships, publications, and training require additional approvals or become unallowable under certain circumstances, workforce professionals may lose access to the very professional development, technical assistance, and best practices that improve program performance and strengthen accountability. Indeed, current law authorizes these activities and encourages them throughout the public workforce system. 

That’s incredibly important because Congress generally understands why teachers, lawyers, and healthcare workers need continuing education. Workforce professionals are no different. 

Rural Communities 

Smaller and rural workforce boards often operate with very limited administrative staff. New compliance responsibilities may fall on the same employees responsible for business engagement, program oversight, fiscal management, and grant administration, stretching already limited capacity even further.  

Customer Wait Times 

Every hour staff spend responding to new administrative requirements is an hour not spent helping jobseekers build resumes, connect with employers, enroll in training, or receive career coaching. Collectively these proposals could reduce the amount of staff time available for direct customer service. 

Board Governance 

Local board members are volunteers drawn from business, education, labor, and community leadership. Increased uncertainty surrounding federal requirements and compliance obligations are likely to shift board meetings away from strategic discussions about workforce needs and toward risk management, compliance, and administrative oversight. 

Small Nonprofits 

Many nonprofits that provide services to our system operate on extremely thin administrative margins. New documentation, payment justification, and monitoring requirements could make participation in federally funded partnerships financially unsustainable, reducing local capacity to deliver services. 

This change is the wrong direction. 

For years, workforce boards have been challenged to become more agile, more innovative, more responsive to employers, and more focused on outcomes. We have embraced that challenge. Across the country, boards have built partnerships, leveraged funding, modernized service delivery, and demonstrated that local leadership produces results. 

These proposed regulations move us in the opposite direction. 

Rather than trusting local communities to solve local workforce challenges, they centralize authority, expand administrative oversight, and layer new compliance obligations onto a system that is already operating with limited administrative resources and capacity. At a time when employers are struggling to find talent and communities are asking the workforce system to do more than ever before, we should be removing unnecessary barriers—not creating new ones. 

One of the most frustrating aspects of this proposal is that it comes at precisely the wrong moment. Workforce boards are already navigating historic labor market change, rapid advances in artificial intelligence, demographic shifts, persistent workforce shortages, and growing expectations from employers and policymakers alike. Every conversation we have with Congress, the Administration, and business leaders centers on one theme: produce better outcomes, move faster, innovate more, and do it with the same, or in most cases fewer, resources. It is difficult to reconcile that expectation with a proposal that asks local organizations to absorb another significant layer of administrative responsibility without providing additional capacity to implement it. 

On Wednesday, July 1st, NAWB along with NAWDP, released an Advocacy Toolkit for workforce boards and professionals breaking down the issue and providing guidance on how to fight back.  

In this blog I’ll be more direct:  

  • Every workforce board should request meetings with its county commissioners, mayors, chief elected officials, congressional delegation, and governor’s office over the coming weeks.  
  • Walk them through the proposal. Help them understand what these changes would mean for your organization and, more importantly, for the workers, businesses, and communities you serve.  

Policymakers cannot appreciate the consequences of this proposal if they only hear from Washington.  

You may think that local leaders are well aware of this proposal, but over the last two weeks I have traveled to multiple events with county commissioners and mayors from a number of States, and even our Senior Director of Government Relations and Advocacy, Gail Silberglied has met with congressional offices where awareness of the OMB proposal is minimal. So far.  

At the local level, our partners at the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities mounted a robust response, including producing a webinar for local leaders, and urging their members to submit public comments. But these local leaders who navigate hundreds of local issues also need to hear from constituents and organizations responsible for implementing workforce policy about how it will impact their communities. 

The July 13 comment deadline for the Federal Register is important, but it is not the finish line. OMB is required to review and address substantive comments and consider changes based on public feedback prior to the October 1 implementation. Congressional oversight will continue, and the opportunity to shape the outcome of this proposal will continue. Submit your comments before the deadline, but don’t stop there. Continue raising this issue in every meeting with your Members of Congress, your Governor, your local elected officials, and your community partners. 

The workforce system has spent decades demonstrating that local leadership, local accountability, and local innovation produce better outcomes than one-size-fits-all solutions. We should not allow that progress to be undermined by regulations that add cost, complexity, and uncertainty. 

NAWB is committed to opposing these proposed changes, and we need you to stand with us. Because this isn’t simply about grant regulations. It’s about preserving the ability of local communities to build the workforce they need to compete and ensuring that every federal dollar is spent where it creates the greatest value: serving people, strengthening businesses, and growing local economies. 

House Appropriations Committee Advances FY27 Labor-HHS-Education Bill

The full House Appropriations Committee marked up its FY27 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill throughout the day yesterday—legislation which provides funding for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) along with other critical workforce development programs. Late last night, the full committee advanced this proposal along party lines (34-28), without making substantive changes to the proposed funding levels for the core formula programs authorized by WIOA or other major workforce development programs.

As structured, the legislation continues to propose a reduction to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) budget of roughly 27 percent below currently enacted levels, with the deepest reductions focused on the public workforce system. WIOA Title I formula grants would be cut 62 percent, with the Adult program eliminated almost entirely through a proposed rescission later this fall, the Youth program eliminated entirely, and only the Dislocated Worker program left largely intact.

Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) sharply criticized this aspect of the bill during yesterday’s markup. “This bill eviscerates funding for employment and training programs by $3.3 billion, one-third below the 2026 level,” she said. “It eliminates funding for adult and youth job training entirely, while cutting funding for Job Corps in half. As inflation outpaces wage growth and new technology upends the workforce, we ought to be investing in programs that support workers, not cutting funding and leaving them out to dry.”

Several amendments were offered during the markup, primarily by Democrats seeking to restore many of the cuts proposed in the bill, yet all were defeated largely along party lines. Notably, Rep. Mrvan (D-IN) offered an amendment to restore funding for WIOA core Title I programs along with funding for adult education authorized by Title II of WIOA. House Subcommittee Chair Aderholt (R-AL) opposed the amendment, arguing that these programs “provide limited return on investment.”

During debate of the amendment, Reps. Morelle (D-NY) and Mrvan pointed to the new work requirements enacted last year under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OB3), arguing that the proposed WIOA cuts run counter to the same underlying goals those new requirements were meant to advance. The Mrvan amendment was also subsequently voted down along party lines. Separately, an amendment from Ranking Member DeLauro to block the Office of Management and Budget’s recently proposed rulemaking on the Uniform Grant Guidance failed on a vote of 32 to 29.

Two other amendments offered by Labor-HHS-ED Subcommittee Chair Robert Aderholt (R-AL), including a manager’s package of changes to the underlying bill, were adopted by the panel. Both measures focused largely on changes beyond core WIOA formula programs, though several provisions related to Job Corps appeared intended to limit the Administration’s ability to close Job Corps centers under certain circumstances. The manager’s amendment also added report language encouraging the Department to support national workforce training organizations that partner with employers on skills-based, industry-recognized credentialed training, and to prioritize reskilling and upskilling the existing workforce to meet needs in critical industries.

Despite yesterday’s legislative activity, the bill’s path forward remains uncertain. It must still clear the House floor, the Senate, and a conference process before any of it can be enacted. NAWB continues to strongly oppose these proposed cuts to the public workforce system. Eliminating the Adult and Youth formula programs would dismantle the foundation of the workforce system and strip away vital services that workers and employers depend on. NAWB will continue to engage members of Congress throughout the FY27 process to ensure these reductions are not enacted.

FY27 House Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee Proposes Steep Workforce Cuts

Last Week, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies released its FY27 funding bill, which proposes to cut the U.S. Department of Labor’s budget to $9.8 billion–a reduction of $3.7 billion or 27 percent below the currently enacted level.

The deepest proposed cuts would impact the public workforce system. WIOA Title I formula grants would receive a 62 percent cut under the House Subcommittee’s FY27 proposal. The bill eliminates the WIOA Adult program almost entirely through a proposed rescission of funding later this fall and eliminates the WIOA Youth program entirely, leaving the Dislocated Worker program as the only one of the three core WIOA Title I formula streams left largely intact. Programs overseen by DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) overall would be reduced to $7 billion, down $3.3 billion, or 32 percent reflecting other significant proposed disinvestments in the American workforce.

Markup 

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS approved its bill on a party-line vote of 11-7. The full committee is expected to consider the bill on Tuesday, June 9.

NAWB’s Position

NAWB strenuously opposes these cuts. NAWB will continue to engage members of Congress throughout the FY27 process to ensure these reductions are not enacted. These cuts come at a time when demand for workforce services is rising, not falling. Additional pressures—including expanded work requirements in safety-net programs and the rapid pace of technological change—mean more individuals will rely on the public workforce system for reskilling and career transitions.

For these reasons, NAWB has asked Congress to fund the WIOA Title I Adult program at $1.5 billion in FY27. Federal workforce investment has declined dramatically over the past several decades, even as the labor force has grown and other nations have increased their commitments. The FY27 proposal would move the United States further away from meeting current and future workforce demands.

Medicaid Work Requirement Rule Released

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued an Interim Final Rule regarding new requirements that certain adult Medicaid applicants and prospective enrollees meet an 80-hour per month work requirement as a condition for eligibility. The rule implements this new requirement created by last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OB3).

Under the new regulation, certain adults will need to complete 80 hours of a “qualifying activity” each month to keep their Medicaid coverage. The requirement applies to adults ages 19 through 64 covered through Medicaid expansion in the 40 states and the District of Columbia that have expanded coverage.

A person can meet the requirement through work, community service, enrollment in an educational program at least half-time, or participation in a work program, and can also qualify by combining activities or by earning a monthly income at or above the federal minimum wage.

The rule sets exemptions for groups, including people who are pregnant or postpartum, people who are disabled or medically frail, caregivers of young children, American Indian and Alaska Native individuals, and people already meeting work requirements under SNAP or TANF. In addition, for the initial year of the rule, individuals can self-attest to qualifying medical conditions and meet community engagement requirements until January 2028, at which point states would be required to verify those conditions.

States must implement the requirement no later than January 1, 2027, and comments on the proposal are due July 31, 2026.

Impact on the Public Workforce System

States must verify each month that enrollees are meeting the requirement, and the rule defines a qualifying work program to include programs under Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). CMS encourages states to coordinate with their workforce agencies on data sharing and on aligning job search activities, which places part of the verification and documentation burden on workforce programs that local boards oversee.

Read the interim final rule and CMS fact sheet here.

Acting DOL Secretary Sonderling Defends President’s FY27 Workforce Budget Before Senate Appropriators

Acting Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling appeared on Tuesday before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor–HHS–Education to justify the Administration’s FY27 budget request and outline its vision for the nation’s workforce system.

MASA Block Grant Takes Center Stage

Sonderling highlighted the Administration’s signature workforce proposal, the Make America Skilled Again (MASA) block grant, as the cornerstone of its FY27 request. He described MASA as a streamlined, state‑driven funding model intended to:

  • Provide states with maximum flexibility
  • Consolidate multiple WIOA Title I programs
  • Expand Registered Apprenticeships, with a required 10% set‑aside
  • Reduce administrative burden and accelerate skills training

Subcommittee Democrats expressed skepticism about the overall effectiveness of the MASA block grant proposal and questioned whether it would lead to more people in training. There was additional criticism concerning the funding cut to workforce development programs given the increasing employer and industry demand for skilled workers. Whether it was Job Corps or WIOA programs, there was a bipartisan sentiment that the Administration mischaracterized the performance and impact of workforce development programs.

Bipartisan Pushback on Job Corps Elimination

Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) underscored the Administration’s proposal to eliminate Job Corps, citing the strong performance and community value of centers in her home state of Maine. While DOL defended the proposal by pointing to cost and performance challenges, senators from both parties expressed skepticism and emphasized Job Corps’ unique role in providing residential training, wraparound supports, and pathways for disconnected youth.

Broad Support for Apprenticeships—With Questions About Implementation

Subcommittee Ranking Member Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) noted that “expanding apprenticeships is one area where we can all agree.” Sonderling reiterated the Administration’s goal of accelerating apprenticeship expansion and aligning federal investments with employer demand.

Additional Issues Raised

Senators also questioned DOL on several cross‑cutting issues, including the proposal to move the Bureau of Labor Statistics to the Department of Commerce, OSHA enforcement and workplace safety, inflation and job creation trends, mine safety, and temporary work visas, particularly for the agricultural industry.

What This Means for Workforce Boards

While the FY27 budget request reflects the Administration’s priorities, Congress will ultimately determine funding levels and program structure. NAWB will continue to analyze the implications of MASA, the proposed elimination of Job Corps, and other major structural changes as appropriations and authorizing discussions advance.

NAWB will keep members informed as additional details emerge and will continue advocating for strong, stable federal investments in the public workforce system.

Workforce Pell Final Rule Published—Are You Ready for the July 1 Implementation?

The U.S. Department of Education announced on Monday that it will publish the final rule implementing the new Workforce Pell Grant program in the Federal Register tomorrow, May 19, 2026. The program, authorized under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act enacted last summer, extends Pell Grant eligibility to shorter-term, high‑quality workforce training programs beginning July 1, 2026.

Under the final rule, federal Pell Grants will be available to students enrolled in programs 8–15 weeks in length and 150–599 clock hours in duration. To qualify, programs must be aligned with high‑skill, high‑wage, or in‑demand occupations or sectors, and must be delivered by an accredited postsecondary institution eligible for Title IV federal student aid.

Importantly, eligible programs must also meet several new quality and accountability requirements, including:

  • A minimum 70 percent completion and job placement rate
  • Compliance with a new value‑added earnings measure, which compares graduates’ earnings to the cost of the program
  • Alignment with state‑identified in‑demand industries and occupations

These guardrails are intended to ensure that Workforce Pell supports programs that deliver strong labor‑market outcomes and represent a sound investment for students.

Are You Ready?

The final rule places substantial responsibility on states and Governors to establish approval processes, identify eligible industries, and operationalize the program. Much of the implementation work will occur at the state level, with state workforce boards playing a central role in determining which programs ultimately qualify for Workforce Pell funds.

Workforce Boards have an important role to play, and should begin by assessing their readiness for implementation:

  1. Are you ready?
  2. Does your state have a policy or guidance?
  3. Does your board have policy or guidance?
  4. Does your AJC team have direction to advise jobseekers or employers?
  5. Does your AJC team have direction and processes to capture data about this program?

State workforce boards will be responsible for:

  • Identifying high‑skill, high‑wage, and in‑demand occupations
  • Reviewing and validating program alignment with state workforce priorities
  • Coordinating with institutions and employers to ensure program relevance

Given these responsibilities, NAWB has been encouraging workforce boards to engage early with their state governments to prepare for implementation and ensure that local and regional workforce needs are reflected in state decision‑making.

Rulemaking Timeline

This final rule follows a negotiated rulemaking process that concluded in December 2025, followed by a public comment period earlier this spring. The rule will be formally published on May 19, 2026, and institutions may opt into early implementation beginning July 1, 2026.

Learn more by reviewing the Rule or the Fact Sheet.

New Apprenticeship Legislation Introduced by Senate Committee Chair; Tell Congress How Your Board Supports Apprenticeship

Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced two related bills aimed at strengthening Registered Apprenticeship Programs (RAPs) this week. The introduction of this legislation coincides with the start of National Apprenticeship Week (NAW), which continues through May 2.

  • The first bill, the Apprenticeship Data Value Improvements to Create Employment (ADVICE) Act, co-authored by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), would establish a federal advisory committee to recommend improvements for how states and sponsors collect and analyze apprenticeship outcomes such as pay, retention, and program completion. The task force would provide recommendations to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to implement future reforms on these topics.

 

  • The second bill, the Streamlining Timely Apprenticeship Registration and Transparency (START) Act, co-authored by Sen. Jim Banks (R-KS), seeks to accelerate and improve the underlying registration process for establishing and implementing RAPs. The START Act would also codify a number of preexisting regulatory definitions and related processes for RAPs in statute, establish decision timelines for the DOL and State Apprenticeship Agencies (SAAs), and create a new $150 million annual formula grant program for states. Specifically, the START ACT would require that registration decisions be made within 90 days for complete program standards and within 30 days for feedback on incomplete submissions, with DOL required to publicly report average response times each month. The new state grant program would allocate funds based on state population and apprentice counts, with a $1 million per-state floor and a 50 percent state match. Allowable uses would include technical assistance to sponsors, training costs, outreach, defraying the costs of apprentice wages, and employer incentives such as pay-for-performance models. States that miss registration deadlines or related timeline requirements would see proportional reductions in the following year’s award. Additional provisions of the START Act would codify existing limits on State Apprenticeship Council authority and require public posting of state reciprocity and standards processes.

Contact Congress

NAWB is tracking both bills closely and welcomes member feedback on any aspect of the proposals. You can also share information with Congress about the Apprenticeships your board supports. Use Our Template Letter on Apprenticeship.

Our Takeaways

For the public workforce system, the most consequential elements are the proposed federal investment in apprenticeship expansion, the explicit allowance for apprentice wage subsidies, and the performance-based registration incentives. The bills largely envision states administering these dollars through their State Apprenticeship Agencies, which may raise practical questions in states where the federal Office of Apprenticeship serves these functions.

Studying Barriers to Apprenticeship

Cassidy is also requesting the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study on removing barriers to create new apprenticeship programs. We invite NAWB members to share with us insights on this topic.