The post State Noncompete Law Tracker appeared first on Economic Innovation Group.
]]>Explore the interactive map of current state noncompete laws, a searchable tracker of proposed noncompete reform bills in state legislatures across the country, and an interactive state-level dashboard that explores how income thresholds affect who’s exempt from noncompete bans.
Nearly one in five workers in the United States are bound by a noncompete agreement preventing them from finding a new job or starting a business in their field when they leave their employer. Noncompetes are currently governed at the state level, and as a growing body of research shows that noncompetes suppress wages, reduce job mobility, and stifle innovation, states are moving rapidly to restrict them. Currently, four states ban the use of noncompetes entirely and 34 states plus DC restrict their use.
Explore the state map below to see where noncompete agreements are currently fully banned, where their enforceability is limited, and where they are allowed.
The map above summarizes statutory restrictions placed on noncompetes in each state and sorts states into four broad categories. “Full ban” states do not allow any noncompetes in an employment context but may have exceptions for the dissolution of a partnership or the goodwill sale of a business. “Income ban” states use an income threshold to determine which employees may be subject to noncompetes and may or may not have additional restrictions. “Other restrictions” include any industry-specific bans, statutory limits to the scope of agreements, or any other limits on noncompetes short of a full ban that are not based on income. “No restrictions” states have no laws on the books defining when a noncompete is valid, except for undefined requirements that they are “reasonable” or in writing. Many states, including some states listed as “no restrictions,” have additional limits on noncompetes based solely on case law. These restrictions are not included in the map, as they may change subject to judicial reinterpretation. Some states have additional process requirements for a noncompete to be valid and enforceable, i.e., that an agreement must be in writing or an employee must have a certain number of days to review a noncompete before signing. Though it is important that workers have time to review any agreement they sign, these requirements do not restrict when a worker may be prevented from working or starting a business in their field and are therefore not included in the map.
Previous research from EIG highlights the importance of including high-earning professionals in any noncompete reform to ensure that the public benefits from the jobs, inventions, and services they create when uninhibited by these restrictions. While some proposed noncompete bans exempt employees earning above a certain salary, EIG believes that such earning thresholds should be at a high enough income percentile so that state residents can reap more of the benefits that would have come with a full noncompete ban. Explore the dashboard below to view the occupations and demographic characteristics of workers in each state who would be excluded under a noncompetes ban proposed at varying income levels:
Over the last few years, lawmakers at the state level have shown increasing interest in curbing the use of noncompetes in their state. However, as noncompete reform has gained traction, some states have pushed back by introducing bills to expand their use. The table below summarizes the bills related to noncompete agreements that have been introduced or seen action in state legislatures in 2026. It was updated as of January 2026.
The table sorts proposed bills into six broad categories:
Click on the top of each column to sort the list alphabetically.
The post State Noncompete Law Tracker appeared first on Economic Innovation Group.
]]>The post The Near-Term Fiscal Impact of H-1B Workers at the Federal and State-and-Local Levels appeared first on Economic Innovation Group.
]]>By Adam Ozimek and Sarah Eckhardt
The H-1B visa is the primary pathway for skilled immigrants to come work in the United States.
While much is known about how individuals on those visas affect innovation and the firms they work for, their impact on government finances has received less attention. Existing research on this topic tends to focus on immigrants’ lifetime fiscal contributions. This report, conversely, shows how H-1Bs contribute to the country’s fiscal health during their three- to six-year visa periods. The report builds on our prior work and examines the effect of H-1B visas on government revenues and expenditures at the state, local, and federal levels.
The findings reveal that H-1B households generate substantial positive fiscal balances at every level of government, contributing far more in taxes than they consume in public services. The average H-1B household contributes $30,050 net annually — 2.6 times the $11,530 contribution of a typical U.S. household. At the state and local level, governments see a net average fiscal gain of $5,040 per H-1B household, with H-1B workers generating positive fiscal balances in 49 states. The fiscal benefits of the H-1B program are not exclusive to high-income states. The low-income state of Mississippi, for example, nets $4,600 per H-1B household — a figure that is higher than those of 21 other states.
The report also demonstrates how policy reforms could strengthen these fiscal benefits. Granting work authorization to all H-1B spouses and replacing the current H-1B lottery system with EIG’s proposed wage ranking system would combine to boost the annual federal net fiscal impact to over $65,000 per H-1B household and the average state impact to over $10,500.
By providing new state-by-state estimates of the fiscal impact of H-1B households, this analysis offers a clearer picture of how high-skilled immigration affects public budgets. At a time of heightened deficit concerns and renewed attention to high-skilled immigration policy, these findings provide important evidence for policymakers evaluating the program’s future.
The post The Near-Term Fiscal Impact of H-1B Workers at the Federal and State-and-Local Levels appeared first on Economic Innovation Group.
]]>The post EIG Statement on President Trump’s Proposal to Expand Retirement Access appeared first on Economic Innovation Group.
]]>Washington, D.C. – The Economic Innovation Group (EIG) released the following statement in response to President Trump’s State of the Union announcement on forthcoming action to provide retirement accounts modeled after the federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).
“EIG welcomes the president’s commitment to creating new pathways for workers to build wealth modeled after the federal Thrift Savings Program (TSP),” said John Lettieri, President and CEO of the Economic Innovation Group. “Closing the gap in retirement savings would be transformative for working Americans, millions of whom are being left behind by the current system. Doing so would also reap enormous long-run fiscal benefits by reducing dependence on safety net programs. For these reasons, EIG has been a strong supporter of the bipartisan, bicameral Retirement Savings for Americans Act (RSAA), which we believe could easily be paired with the Trump Administration’s executive action to deliver a historic win for American workers.”
EIG’s research has consistently documented the scale of the retirement access gap:
The bipartisan Retirement Savings for Americans Act offers a ready-made framework to close this gap.
Learn more about the RSAA and EIG’s retirement policy work here: https://inclusivewealth.eig.org/
About the Economic Innovation Group (EIG)
The Economic Innovation Group (EIG) is a bipartisan public policy organization dedicated to forging a more dynamic and inclusive American economy. Headquartered in Washington, DC, EIG produces nationally-recognized research and works with policymakers to develop ideas that empower workers, entrepreneurs, and communities.
The post EIG Statement on President Trump’s Proposal to Expand Retirement Access appeared first on Economic Innovation Group.
]]>