Keep Call Centers in America Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. McDonald Rivet, Kristen [D-MI-8]
- Committees
- Armed Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 12, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to deter the offshoring of call center jobs and enhance consumer transparency by imposing financial disincentives on companies that move jobs abroad and by requiring clear disclosures about customer service agent locations and AI use.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretary of Labor to create and maintain a public list of employers that relocate call centers or contract call center work overseas. Companies on this list would be ineligible for federal grants or guaranteed loans for five years, with penalties for existing awards. Additionally, it requires business entities to disclose the physical location of customer service agents and the use of artificial intelligence in customer service communications, offering consumers the option to be transferred to a U.S.-based human agent.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill protects American jobs by disincentivizing companies from moving call center operations overseas, ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars do not subsidize job flight. They also contend that it empowers consumers with crucial information about who or what they are interacting with, fostering trust and allowing them to choose U.S.-based service.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that the bill imposes significant administrative burdens and financial penalties on businesses, potentially hindering their competitiveness and operational flexibility. They might also contend that it could lead to increased costs for consumers if businesses pass on compliance expenses, and that it interferes with legitimate business decisions regarding global operations.
The bill is relatively short and accessible, but understanding its full implications requires careful attention to definitions, exceptions, and penalty structures.
Title I, Sec. 101(a)
Public List of Call Centers Relocating or Contracting Work Overseas
This provision requires employers to notify the Secretary of Labor at least 120 days before relocating a call center or contracting call center work overseas. The Secretary must then establish and maintain a publicly available list of these employers. Companies remain on this list for up to five years, but can be removed if they relocate a call center back to the United States and employ an equal or greater number of workers, or if they amend overseas contracts to bring work back to the U.S.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision promotes transparency and accountability, making it harder for companies to quietly move jobs overseas without public awareness. The notification requirement gives the government and affected communities time to respond, while the removal mechanism incentivizes bringing jobs back to the U.S.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that this creates an unnecessary 'blacklist' that could harm companies' reputations and deter foreign investment, even for legitimate business decisions. They might also argue it imposes an undue administrative burden on businesses to track and report these changes.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right to know and the goal of domestic job retention against corporate flexibility and potential reputational harm to businesses.
Title I, Sec. 101(b)
Ineligibility for Federal Grants or Guaranteed Loans
Employers appearing on the Secretary's list of offshoring companies become ineligible to apply for or receive any new direct or indirect federal grants or guaranteed loans for five years. For existing awards, listed employers face a monthly penalty equal to 8.3% of the total dispersed grant/loan amount and cannot receive further disbursements. Existing awards are canceled if the employer remains on the list for one year. Exceptions can be granted if a lack of funding would threaten national security, result in substantial U.S. job loss, or harm the environment.
Title I, Sec. 104
Federal Contract Call Center Work to be Performed in the United States
This section mandates that any call center work performed in connection with a federal contract or subcontract, whether civilian or defense-related, must be carried out within the United States. This applies to all agencies awarding such contracts.
Title II, Sec. 201(a)
Disclosure of Customer Service Agent's Physical Location
Business entities engaging in customer service communications must disclose the physical location of their employees or agents at the beginning of each interaction. If the agent is located outside the United States, the consumer must be informed of their right to request an immediate transfer to a U.S.-based agent. Exceptions apply if all agents are U.S.-based, the consumer knowingly initiated contact with a foreign entity, or for emergency services.
Title II, Sec. 201(b)
Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence Use in Customer Service
Business entities using artificial intelligence for customer service communications must disclose this fact at the beginning of each interaction. Consumers must also be informed that they can request an immediate transfer to a human operator who is physically located in the United States, including via voice command.
The definitions of 'contracting call center work overseas' and 'relocating' specify that the transfer of work must comprise 'at least 30 percent of the total volume of the call center or operating unit when measured against the previous 12-month average call volume of operations or substantially similar operations.'
Sec. 2(6) and Sec. 2(10)
Why it matters:While defining terms upfront is standard legislative practice, the precise 30% threshold is a highly consequential detail that determines the scope of the bill's impact, making it easy to miss its significance.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this specific, measurable threshold provides clarity and prevents companies from making minor, incremental shifts to avoid the bill's provisions. It ensures that only significant offshoring actions trigger the penalties.
Case against: Critics might contend that the 30% threshold is arbitrary or too low, potentially penalizing companies for operational adjustments that are not intended as large-scale offshoring. They could argue it creates an incentive to move just under the threshold.
Estimated impact: This definition directly determines which employers are subject to the bill's list, ineligibility, and penalty provisions, thus significantly impacting their business decisions regarding call center operations.
Employers on the offshoring list who have already received federal grants or guaranteed loans must pay a monthly penalty to the awarding agency equal to 8.3 percent of the total grant or loan payment dispersed to the employer as of the date the first penalty is due.
Sec. 101(b)(1)(B)(i)(I)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail of the penalty structure, but its significant financial impact makes it a key provision that could be intentionally or unintentionally obscured by its placement within a complex subsection.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this strong, recurring penalty provides a powerful disincentive for companies to offshore jobs even after benefiting from federal funds, ensuring accountability and preventing the misuse of taxpayer money.
Case against: Critics might argue that this is an overly aggressive and potentially crippling clawback mechanism, especially for businesses that may have received grants for unrelated domestic projects. They could contend it creates financial instability and uncertainty.
Estimated impact: This provision could result in substantial financial penalties for companies that have received federal funding and subsequently offshore call center work, potentially leading to the cancellation of their grants or loans after one year.