Prohibition of Guaranteed Income Programs:
HB 1193 would create a new section of Florida Statutes prohibiting local governments from adopting or enforcing guaranteed income programs unless expressly authorized by state law. The bill defines a “guaranteed income program” as a program that provides unconditional cash payments on a regular basis for any use by the recipient, while excluding programs that require work, reemployment efforts, or training as a condition of payment.
The bill applies to counties, municipalities, special districts, and other political subdivisions of the state. It would bar these local entities from using ordinances, resolutions, orders, or rules to make payments under such programs. The measure also gives the Attorney General enforcement authority, including issuing cease-and-desist orders and filing civil actions in circuit court for injunctive relief if a local government does not comply. The act would take effect October 1, 2025.
If enacted, HB 1193 would preempt local governments from creating or operating unconditional cash-transfer programs without explicit state authorization. It would add a new statutory restriction to Florida law, limit local home-rule authority in this policy area, and authorize the Attorney General to enforce compliance through cease-and-desist orders and court injunctions. The bill would affect counties, municipalities, special districts, and other political subdivisions that might otherwise consider pilot guaranteed income or direct-cash assistance programs.
There is limited recorded debate in the available materials, but the bill’s progression suggests it did not advance far and ultimately died in the State Affairs Committee. The absence of committee transcripts or recorded votes makes it difficult to identify broad support or opposition from the legislative record provided. Based on the bill’s subject matter, it appears to reflect a policy preference for restricting local experimentation with unconditional cash assistance programs.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between state control and local autonomy. Supporters would view the bill as preventing local governments from using public funds for unconditional cash payments without legislative approval, while opponents would likely argue that it unnecessarily blocks local pilot programs and limits home-rule flexibility to address poverty, housing instability, or other social needs. Another possible issue is the bill’s broad enforcement mechanism, which empowers the Attorney General to intervene directly against local governments.