Angela Antonelli: What’s 🔥 Next for Retirement Security

We’ve got a treat for you today! In this wide-ranging conversation, Angela Antonelli, Research Professor and Executive Director of the Georgetown University Center for Retirement Initiatives at the McCourt School of Public Policy, reflects on the rapid expansion of state Auto IRA programs, shares why small businesses remain both the greatest challenge and greatest opportunity, and explains how some of the most recent tools being considered like alternative assets and the Saver’s Match could reshape retirement outcomes for millions. She also looks ahead to what’s next for CRI’s research and the future of retirement innovation. ❤️ Join us here.

Angela, we’re starting with a tough one. Give us a quick “state of the states.” Where are we with state Auto IRA programs in the fall of 2025?

The state of the states is strong—getting stronger every year. These programs have driven, and will continue to drive, important changes in the U.S. retirement system.

For those new to the space: 20 state programs have been adopted, reaching roughly 20–21 million of the 59 million workers who lack access to an employer plan. Of those 20, 17 are Auto IRA programs, two are voluntary multiple-employer plans (Massachusetts and Missouri), and one is a voluntary hybrid marketplace/IRA arrangement. Fourteen programs are open today—12 Auto IRA programs, plus the Massachusetts MEP and the Washington marketplace.

More than half of those 14 open programs launched in just the past three years. Since 2022, eight states have gone live, and the time to launch keeps shortening because of lessons learned and best practices—much of that coming from early adopters like California, Illinois, and Oregon. Lisa, you know this from your OregonSaves experience: those first movers paved the path so later states could launch more quickly.

Looking ahead: we’ll see several more states come online. Nevada launched this June. New York opened its pilot in July and is aiming for a full launch by year-end. We also expect Rhode Island to launch. In 2026, we should see Minnesota and Hawaii launch, and Washington Saves is planned for 2027. It’s an exciting trajectory.

Another key development is the growth in state partnerships. Of the Auto IRA states, about half are partnering. The Colorado Partnership for Dignified Retirement now has six states—Colorado as the lead with five partners—and Minnesota is finalizing its agreement. Connecticut and Rhode Island are in the final stages of their partnership agreement; we hope to see a September announcement for Rhode Island’s launch with Connecticut.

With expanding programs and blossoming partnerships, we’re now over $2.4 billion in assets and more than a million funded saver accounts. As we head into the 2026 legislative sessions, we’re optimistic about additional adoptions. It’s not unusual to see fewer adoptions in a year following a major national election, so 2025 being quieter on new programs isn’t concerning. Importantly, we did see existing programs make smart changes this year—to expand eligible employers and strengthen compliance. States are continuously learning from one another and improving. It’s been a very active, very positive year.

You’ve seen the states through many stages—from “twinkle in the eye” to billions saved. What are some of today’s most interesting challenges?

States remain appropriately focused on employers. The whole point is to give employers—especially the smallest ones—a low-cost, simple way to help workers save. That means reaching thousands of very small businesses. We’re a small-business nation; in every state, most firms have fewer than 20 employees. There’s a reason these employers have been underserved: they’re hard to find and hard to reach cost-effectively. The private market has long struggled with the distribution challenge.

Even after you find them, there’s real work in getting accounts set up for workers and supporting employers to facilitate payroll deductions. Those are good challenges to have because solving them builds the infrastructure we need so all employers can offer a simple, effective way to save.

The states are pushing the envelope here—and pushing private providers, too—to solve for reach, onboarding, and payroll facilitation. If we want a retirement system that truly reaches all workers through their employer, we have to meet this challenge.

… And what do you like about what you’re seeing overall?

I’m excited about states as catalysts for significant change. Since the SECURE Act in 2019 and SECURE 2.0 in 2022, there’s been a push to help small businesses offer plans and reduce costs. To close the access gap, it will take both state programs and private-sector solutions working together.

The research emerging now from Georgetown and others is encouraging. In early adopter states like California, Illinois, and Oregon, we’ve seen tens of thousands of firms adopt their own plans—a study done by Gusto examining Colorado showed the share of employers offering a 401(k) increased from 25% in July 2022 to 38% in August 2023 with the launch of the new state program. We’re also seeing evidence of positive labor-market effects—retirement benefits matter to workers and can support private-sector employment.

Other research also shows that in early adopter states like California, Illinois, and Oregon, state Auto IRAs and new private plans are reaching more workers and increasing overall retirement savings: more people contribute, balances grow, and we’re not seeing large emergency withdrawals from these accounts. That’s a strong sign that these programs are boosting savings without causing leakage. So we’re seeing positive effects on coverage, private plan formation, and the workforce—great news for workers, states, and providers.

You’ve helped the defined contribution community consider alternative assets—a new reality that’s coming to U.S. DC plans. How could this work?

At Georgetown, our focus is the broader retirement ecosystem. It’s not only about getting people into the system—it’s also about how the money is invested and converting savings into income. We’ve been researching private assets in DC plans for six or seven years and have published multiple reports, including two in August 2025.

Private assets in retirement plans aren’t new: DB plans have used them for decades; high-net-worth investors use them; they’re used in other countries. What’s “new” is considering them in the U.S. defined contribution system—where most Americans now save.

The core idea is diversification. Our work shows that modest allocations to private assets—especially when professionally implemented in target-date funds—can improve long-term retirement income outcomes. Public markets are shrinking; private markets are growing. If most savers are excluded from that part of the market, they may miss diversification benefits.

In our most recent work, we looked at “disrupted savings”—common life patterns like caregiving breaks, job changes, periods of unemployment, early retirement, and the impact of debt. The “average” uninterrupted saver doesn’t really exist. Given how common disruptions are, we should use every prudent tool available to blunt the damage. A modest allocation to private assets is one of those tools that can help improve outcomes for workers with non-linear saving histories.

We’ve got to talk about the Saver’s Match, implementing in 2027. Will it be challenging for Auto IRA savers to access—and how important is that?

The Saver’s Match has the potential to benefit millions of low- and moderate-income Americans. It’s hugely important for retirement readiness and overall financial well-being.

We’ve illustrated the power of a refundable match in our research—first in 2020, when we were making the case to move from a nonrefundable credit to a refundable structure, and again this year. The impact can be significant: boosting savings—and ultimately annual retirement income—by 40–50%. That’s substantial.

State programs serve many of the very workers who will be eligible for the match, so they’ll be an effective conduit for awareness and access. Stakeholders and policymakers are working to implement the match as simply and cost-effectively as possible.

A key operational issue: the match needs to be depositable into Roth accounts. That’s the straightforward, administratively efficient path. If tax-treatment adjustments are needed, they should be addressed. There are workable solutions here, and Congress and the Administration should act to make it easy to deliver the match. Given the potential 40–50% improvement in outcomes, it’s essential to get this right.

As you point out, the overlap between workers covered—or likely to be covered—by Auto IRAs and those eligible for the Saver’s Match is very high.

Exactly—another reason more states should adopt programs. If I lived in a state without a program, I’d want one so I could more easily take advantage of the match.

Final question. You’re constantly innovating and educating. What’s on deck next for the Georgetown Center for Retirement Initiatives?

We’ll continue to support state programs—both legislative adoption and program maturation. As more programs come online and data becomes more standardized, benchmarking performance will keep improving. We’re still early; three years ago only three states had launched. But we’re making progress toward clearer performance standards.

On research, we and others will keep digging into governance, administration, employer and saver behavior, opt-out dynamics, account usage, withdrawal patterns—insights that help state programs and the broader ecosystem.

We’re also thinking about “what’s next” for Auto IRAs as assets grow: financial education and literacy (within legal and regulatory bounds), lifetime income, emergency savings connections, interactions with new Trump Accounts—there’s a lot coming. Understanding how these moving parts intersect—and their long-term impacts, positive or negative—will be a focus.

And circling back to investment design in DC plans: how money is invested still matters, right through to lifetime income. We need to understand plan sponsors—their motivations and hesitations. Innovation doesn’t happen if sponsors won’t adopt it. Litigation risk remains a real factor. We have to confront that, and consider what’s needed legislatively or regulatorily to clear the path for sponsors to adopt innovations in plan design.

At the end of the day, we have an employer-based system. If we want progress—on small-business coverage, investment design, lifetime income—we have to meet sponsors where they are, reduce friction and risk, and make it practical for them to say “yes.”

Absolutely. Angela, you’ve shared so much current thinking and practical wisdom. Thank you.

Want to continue the conversation? Reach out to Angela by email, and on LinkedIn.

Angela Antonelli has spent decades at the heart of retirement policy and innovation. As Executive Director of the Georgetown University Center for Retirement Initiatives (CRI), she leads research, education, and policy development that shapes how millions of Americans save for the future. From her vantage point, she sees the “state of the states” when it comes to Auto IRA programs, tracks how new innovations like alternative assets and lifetime income might find their way into defined contribution plans, and advises policymakers on the tools that can make the most difference for low- and moderate-income workers.

This piece was also featured in the September 18, 2025, edition of Retirement Security Matters. For more fresh thinking on retirement savings innovation, check out the newsletter here.