CHILD Labor Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 18, 2026
Bottom line
The CHILD Labor Act aims to deter child labor exploitation through stricter definitions, substantially increased penalties, enhanced supply chain accountability, and broader enforcement powers for the Department of Labor.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the CHILD Labor Act, significantly expands and strengthens federal protections against child labor violations. It redefines "oppressive child labor" to include specific hazardous industries for individuals under 18, increases civil and criminal penalties for violations, establishes new mechanisms for corporate accountability in supply chains, and imposes strict child labor requirements on federal contractors and recipients of federal financial assistance. The bill also grants the Secretary of Labor new enforcement powers, including the authority to issue stop-work orders and affix "Unlawfully manufactured; child labor" tags to goods.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a critical response to a documented rise in child labor violations, providing necessary updates to outdated laws. They contend it will close loopholes that allow companies to profit from child exploitation, ensure accountability across complex supply chains, and provide meaningful recourse for child labor victims. Supporters believe these measures are essential to protect children's health, safety, and educational opportunities.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill imposes excessive regulatory burdens and financial liabilities on businesses, potentially hindering economic activity and legitimate youth employment opportunities. Concerns could be raised about the broad scope of successor liability, the potential for business disruption from stop-work orders, and the administrative costs associated with new compliance requirements and enforcement mechanisms.
The bill is moderately complex due to its amendments to existing statutes and introduction of new legal concepts, requiring careful reading for a full understanding of its implications.
Title I, Sec. 101
Expanded Definition of Oppressive Child Labor and Hazardous Occupations
This section amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to explicitly define "oppressive child labor" to include employment of individuals under 18 in manufacturing, mining, trenching or excavation, meat processing, demolition, or explosives. It also grants the Secretary of Labor authority to identify and declare other occupations or places of work as dangerous or detrimental to the health, safety, or well-being of children under 18, or 14-15 year olds. The Secretary is required to issue regulations within 180 days and review and update them every five years.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that explicitly listing hazardous industries and empowering the Secretary to regularly update these definitions ensures that child labor laws remain relevant to modern workplaces and effectively protect children from the most dangerous forms of exploitation.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that these expanded definitions could restrict legitimate employment opportunities for older teenagers and impose undue burdens on industries, potentially leading to job losses for youth or increased compliance costs for businesses.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the imperative to protect children from dangerous work with concerns about limiting youth employment opportunities and increasing regulatory burdens on businesses.
Title I, Sec. 102(a)
Supply Chain Accountability for Oppressive Child Labor
This section prohibits any person from producing, manufacturing, or offering into commerce goods or services if an employer who is a contractor or subcontractor (at any tier) of that person employs oppressive child labor in their production. A "good faith" defense is available if the person relied on written assurances, had no notice of violations, and took meaningful, affirmative steps to ensure compliance throughout their supply chain. The Secretary of Labor is also authorized to seek records from contractors and subcontractors during investigations.
Title I, Sec. 102(e)
Secretary's Authority to Issue Stop Work Orders
This section grants the Secretary of Labor new authority to issue stop work orders to any person found in violation of child labor laws. These orders can apply to one or more worksites, regardless of whether all worksites are directly involved in a violation, and remain in effect until compliance is demonstrated. Crucially, any individual prevented from working due to a stop work order must be compensated by the person issued the order at their regular rate for all hours they would have worked.
Title I, Sec. 103(a)
Increased Civil Penalties for Child Labor Violations
This section dramatically increases civil monetary penalties for child labor violations under the FLSA. The base penalty for each employee subject to a violation is raised to $160,350, which can be doubled under aggravating circumstances (repeated/willful violations, hazardous occupations, prior violations within 10 years, or involving more than 10 children). For violations causing death or serious injury to an employee under 18, the penalty is $728,760, also subject to doubling under aggravating factors.
Title I, Sec. 103(c)
Compensatory and Punitive Damages for Child Labor Victims
This section amends the FLSA to allow employees affected by child labor violations to recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, and other legal or equitable relief. For general violations, compensatory damages are a minimum of $75,000 (doubled for hazardous work). For violations causing death or serious injury, compensatory damages are a minimum of $750,000 (doubled for repeated/willful violations), and punitive damages can be awarded at a minimum of $1,000,000. The statute of limitations for these actions is extended to 10 years. The Secretary of Labor is also authorized to supervise and bring actions for these damages.
Title II, Sec. 202
Child Labor Requirements for Federal Contracts and Assistance (Davis-Bacon & Service Contract Acts)
This section extends stringent child labor prohibitions to contracts and financial assistance covered by the Davis-Bacon Act (construction) and the Service Contract Act (services). It prohibits the employment of oppressive child labor by contractors, recipients, and all tiers of subcontractors/suppliers. It mandates training on these requirements and the establishment of labor-management committees to review policies and promote violation reporting. Violations can result in liquidated damages ($20 per day per individual), contract cancellation, and a 3-year debarment from future federal contracts or assistance. A "good faith" defense is available under specific conditions.
The bill completely replaces the existing definition of 'oppressive child labor' in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) with a new, expanded definition. This new definition explicitly lists specific industries (manufacturing, mining, trenching or excavation, meat processing, demolition, or explosives) as inherently involving oppressive child labor for anyone under 18 years of age.
Title I, Sec. 101(a)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for comprehensive amendments, but the full scope of the change requires careful reading to understand the new, explicit prohibitions.
Case for: Supporters argue that explicitly listing these industries provides clarity and immediately addresses known areas of child labor exploitation, removing ambiguity and strengthening protections for minors in particularly dangerous fields.
Case against: Critics might argue that such broad prohibitions for individuals under 18, even in these industries, could inadvertently limit vocational training or legitimate employment opportunities for older teenagers, potentially impacting their career development.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the scope of prohibited child labor, affecting numerous industries and potentially thousands of young workers.
This section introduces a broad definition of "successor in interest" for child labor violations under FLSA, establishing joint and several liability. A "successor in interest" includes any person who uses substantially the same facilities or workers, employs the same managing agents, OR has an owner/partner/officer/director who is an immediate family member of a previous owner/partner/officer/director AND is in the same industry.
Title I, Sec. 102(d)
Why it matters:While defining terms is standard, the breadth of this definition, especially the family-member clause, is a significant expansion of liability that might be intentionally placed in a less prominent part of the bill.
Case for: Proponents argue this broad definition prevents employers from evading child labor liabilities through superficial corporate restructuring or by transferring operations to family members, ensuring continuous accountability.
Case against: Critics might argue that the "immediate family member" clause is overly broad and could unfairly impose liability on new, legitimate businesses simply due to familial ties, complicating business transfers and discouraging entrepreneurship within families.
Estimated impact: Could significantly expand the pool of entities liable for child labor violations, particularly affecting small and family-owned businesses.
This clause mandates that a person issued a stop work order must compensate any individual engaged to perform work for remuneration who does not perform such work as a result of the order. Compensation must be at the regular rate for all hours the individual would have worked but for the order.
Title I, Sec. 102(e)(2)(D)(i)
Why it matters:While a logical consequence of a stop-work order from a worker protection perspective, the direct financial burden on the employer during a forced shutdown is a significant detail that might be less emphasized by proponents.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures that innocent workers are not financially penalized for their employer's child labor violations, providing a safety net and maintaining economic stability for families.
Case against: Critics would contend that this imposes a substantial and potentially crippling financial burden on businesses, forcing them to pay wages for no work during a period of forced closure, which could lead to business failure.
Estimated impact: Could result in significant, immediate payroll costs for businesses subject to stop work orders, potentially totaling thousands to tens of thousands of dollars per day depending on the size of the workforce.
This clause requires federal contractors and recipients of federal financial assistance, along with their subcontractors and suppliers at any tier, to establish a labor-management committee. The purpose of these committees is to review child labor policies and promote the reporting of any violations of such policies.
Title II, Sec. 202(b)(1)(C)
Why it matters:This is a structural, administrative requirement that, while important for compliance, is not as immediately impactful or controversial as penalty increases or new liability rules, and thus might be placed in a less prominent position.
Case for: Proponents argue that these committees foster a culture of compliance, empower workers, and create an internal mechanism for identifying and addressing child labor issues proactively, thereby strengthening overall protections.
Case against: Critics might argue that mandating labor-management committees imposes an additional administrative and bureaucratic burden on businesses, particularly smaller ones, without a clear demonstration of effectiveness or necessity for all types of contracts.
Estimated impact: Imposes new administrative costs and time commitments on potentially thousands of federal contractors, recipients, and their supply chain partners.