The Modernize the Au Pair Program Act of 2025 declares that the Department of State has exclusive regulatory authority over the federally administered au pair cultural-exchange program and bars States and their subdivisions from enacting or enforcing laws “related to” that program. The bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a proposed rule to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget within 90 days that recalibrates the national stipend approach, preserves affordability for host families, and builds in flexibility for military families, first responders, single parents, shift workers and other households with non‑traditional schedules.
This matters because it replaces the current patchwork of state-level pressure points with a single federal standard, potentially insulating program administration from local labor and safety rules while reshaping how sponsors and host families calculate and budget for au pair compensation. The statute sets binding procedural tasks (the 90‑day OMB submission) but does not amend visa classifications, provide new funding, or specify an enforcement mechanism for the preemption it creates — issues that will drive implementation choices and legal disputes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill statutorily preempts States and political subdivisions from making or enforcing laws “related to” the au pair program administered by the Department of State. It also mandates that the Secretary of State submit to OMB within 90 days a proposed rule with three defined objectives: adjust the stipend and educational stipend formula, increase scheduling flexibility for certain families, and promote au pair immersion in host-family life.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the Department of State (as sole regulator), designated program sponsors that place and support au pairs, host families who pay stipends, and participating au pairs themselves. State and local governments are affected indirectly because the bill would displace their ability to regulate program-related matters.
Why It Matters
The statute consolidates regulatory authority where the federal government frames the exchange as a foreign‑policy tool, which can maintain national uniformity but also limits state labor and safety interventions. The required DoS rulemaking will determine whether the program remains affordable for host families and how protections for au pairs and obligations for sponsors are operationalized.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill begins by restating Congress’s historical treatment of the au pair program as a foreign affairs instrument and recounts how regulatory authority migrated from the United States Information Agency to the Department of State in 1999. That history sets the statutory premise: au pairs are framed as participants in a cultural and educational exchange whose administration belongs at the federal level rather than split across States.
The core operative change is a flat prohibition: a State or a political subdivision may not enact or enforce any law, regulation, or other provision having the force or effect of law that is “related to” the Department of State’s au pair program. That language is broad and will be the focal point of future disputes about whether local occupational-safety rules, municipal business licensing, or state wage laws qualify as being “related to” the program.
The bill does not itself define enforcement mechanisms or carve out exceptions for other federal or state statutes.The bill also imposes a short, specific administrative task on the executive branch. Within 90 days of enactment the Secretary of State must submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a proposed rule that covers three program priorities: (1) a uniform national modification to stipend and educational stipend calculations that accounts for room, board, and programmatic costs without making participation prohibitively expensive; (2) enhanced scheduling flexibility to accommodate military families, first responders, single parents, shift workers, and others with non‑traditional work hours; and (3) steps to promote cultural immersion of au pairs into host-family life.
The submission requirement is to OMB (which means it enters interagency review), not simply publication in the Federal Register, so the interagency process and OMB comments will shape the ultimate rule.Notably absent from the bill are changes to visa categories, explicit funding for implementing the rule, or an authorization of new enforcement personnel. The statute relies on DoS rulemaking to resolve detailed operational issues: how the stipend will be calculated or indexed, how flexibility will be operationalized without undermining educational or cultural goals, and how sponsors should alter placement and training practices to comply with a national standard.
These are the practical questions sponsors, host families, and State labor agencies will face once DoS publishes the proposed and final rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 3 uses broad preemptive language: it bars States and political subdivisions from enacting or enforcing “a law, regulation, or other provision having the force or effect of law related to the au pair program administered by the Department of State.”, Section 4 forces the Secretary of State to submit a proposed rule to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget within 90 days of enactment — a hard procedural deadline that triggers interagency review under the Paperwork Reduction and rulemaking processes.
The bill recalls the program’s regulatory history: the USIA originally created a nationally uniform weekly stipend formula tied to the Federal minimum wage and a 40% credit for room and board, and authority moved to the State Department in 1999 — the bill relies on that legacy when directing a uniform stipend approach.
The required rule must achieve three discrete objectives: modify the stipend and educational stipend to reflect room/board and program costs without making the program unaffordable; enhance scheduling flexibility for families with non‑traditional hours (explicitly including military and first responders); and promote au pair immersion into host-family life.
The statute does not amend federal labor statutes, alter J‑1 or other visa classifications, authorize funding, or specify penalties or an enforcement regime for the new preemption; those omissions will shape litigation risk and administrative choices.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act’s official name, “Modernize the Au Pair Program Act of 2025.” This is a formal device but signals congressional intent to treat the measure as a targeted modernization rather than a broad immigration or labor statute; that framing matters in statutory interpretation and agency rulemaking.
Findings and legislative context
Enumerates Congress’s view of the program’s history and purpose: authorized under the Fulbright‑Hays framework, piloted by USIA in 1986, permanently authorized in 1997, and transferred to the Department of State in 1999. The findings recite the original rationale for national uniformity in stipend rules (including the historical 40% credit for room and board) and underline policymakers’ concern about affordability for American families — language the Department of State will likely cite when justifying specific regulatory choices.
Federal preemption of State and local regulation
Imposes an express prohibition on States and political subdivisions from enacting or enforcing any law, regulation, or provision having force of law that is related to the DoS‑administered au pair program. Practically, this overrides municipal or state efforts that could affect placement, compensation, licensing of sponsors, or operational terms tied to the federal program, although the statute does not define the outer bounds of “related to” or create an internal enforcement mechanism.
Mandatory revised proposed rule and required objectives
Requires the Secretary of State to submit a proposed rule to the Director of OMB within 90 days of enactment. The statute specifies three objectives for that rule: (1) a uniform national modification to the stipend and educational stipend reflecting room, board, and programmatic costs without making the program prohibitively expensive; (2) increased flexibility for unique scheduling needs of military families, first responders, single parents, and shift workers; and (3) measures to promote au pair immersion in family life. Because the submission is to OMB, the rule will undergo interagency review; the text leaves timetable, notice‑and‑comment phases, and implementation details to administrative process rather than statutory prescription.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Host families that rely on national uniformity — particularly those with non‑traditional schedules — gain predictability and the prospect of standardized flexibility features that could better accommodate shift work and military deployments.
- Designated au pair program sponsors receive relief from a patchwork of state and local regulatory demands, simplifying compliance and potentially reducing legal exposure across multiple jurisdictions.
- The Department of State gains clearer statutory backing to assert exclusive control over program rules, strengthening its ability to align program operation with foreign‑policy and public diplomacy objectives.
- Certain host-family groups explicitly named in the bill — military families, first responders, single parents, and shift workers — are likely to benefit if the forthcoming rule expands scheduling flexibility and placement options tailored to their needs.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local governments lose a regulatory lever to address local labor, housing, or safety concerns associated with au pair placements and may see diminished ability to enforce state wage and licensing standards.
- State labor departments and municipal licensing authorities could see enforcement responsibilities curtailed, shifting disputes into federal courts or administrative channels instead of local enforcement mechanisms.
- Host families may face higher costs if the State Department adopts a stipend formula that increases au pair compensation to reflect room, board, and programmatic costs.
- Designated sponsors will incur administrative and operational costs to implement a new national stipend formula, revise training and placement policies, and respond to DoS rule requirements within compressed timeframes.
- The Department of State and OMB will absorb rulemaking resource demands and interagency coordination burdens without an appropriation in the text, placing implementation pressure on existing budgets.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate priorities against each other: Congress’s interest in treating the au pair program as a unified federal cultural‑exchange tool that requires national uniformity, and States’ traditional authority to protect workers and set local labor, housing, and safety standards; resolving those aims through a broad preemption and a compressed federal rulemaking risks solving regulatory inconsistency at the cost of local protections and raises hard choices about stipend adequacy across diverse local economies.
The bill resolves one ambiguity — that the au pair exchange is a federally governed cultural program — while leaving several practical and legal questions unsettled. Most consequential is the scope of the preemption clause: “related to the au pair program” is broad and could be read to displace state wage and hour laws, municipal housing codes, or safety inspections when those requirements intersect with placements.
That breadth invites litigation over whether traditional state labor protections fall within the statute’s sweep or remain enforceable in contexts the statute did not intend to govern.
A second tension concerns the stipend directive. The bill demands a nationally uniform modification that both reflects room, board, and program costs and “does not make the program prohibitively expensive.” Those aims conflict in high cost‑of‑living areas: a uniform national approach can undercompensate au pairs in expensive markets or push host families out of the program if DoS raises stipends to match local costs.
The bill leaves indexation methods, frequency of adjustments, and the treatment of local cost differentials to administrative rulemaking, producing uncertainty for sponsors and host families during the transition.
Finally, the 90‑day OMB submission deadline compresses the administrative timeline and places the rule in the interagency review pipeline without allocating implementation funding or specifying procedural milestones (e.g., notice, comment, effective dates). The combination of a short statutory deadline, no funding, and a broadly preemptive text increases the risk of rushed rulemaking, narrow administrative records, and judicial challenge — all of which affect how quickly and cleanly the Department of State can translate the statute’s goals into operational policy.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.