AWARE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-5]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 25, 2026
Bottom line
The AWARE Act aims to provide critical data on AI's evolving role in the workforce to inform policy, education, and business strategies.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the AWARE Act, directs the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to expand its data collection mandate to include comprehensive statistics on the usage of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace. It amends existing law to explicitly require BLS to measure AI's impact on labor conditions, products, distribution, and total hours of employment. The BLS is mandated to begin collecting these new statistics within 18 months of the bill's enactment.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is essential for understanding the rapidly changing labor market due to AI. They contend that current data collection methods are inadequate to capture AI's effects on employment, wages, tasks, and training, and that improved data will enable better-informed policy decisions, workforce training programs, and business adaptation strategies, ultimately benefiting workers and the economy.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns about the potential administrative burden on businesses that would be required to report new data, as well as the costs associated with expanding BLS's data collection capabilities without explicit appropriations. Some may also question the feasibility of accurately and consistently measuring 'AI usage' across diverse industries and occupations, or raise privacy concerns regarding the granular data collected.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and easy evaluation by an informed reader.
Section 3
Mandating BLS Data Collection on AI Usage
This section is the core of the bill, directing the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to collect and report comprehensive statistics specifically on how artificial intelligence is being used in workplaces across the United States. It amends a foundational law governing BLS to ensure that AI usage is included in its mandate to track labor conditions, products, distribution, and total hours worked. Furthermore, it sets a clear deadline, requiring BLS to commence this new data collection within 18 months after the bill becomes law.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this provision is crucial for filling a significant data gap regarding AI's transformative effects on the economy and labor market. They assert that without dedicated, timely, and representative statistics, stakeholders cannot effectively prepare for or respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by AI, making this directive a foundational step for future policy.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that while the goal is laudable, mandating new data collection without specific funding or a detailed plan could strain BLS resources and impose undue reporting burdens on businesses, especially small enterprises. They may also question the practical challenges of defining and consistently measuring 'AI usage' across diverse contexts, potentially leading to inconsistent or less useful data.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the clear need for comprehensive data on AI's workforce impact against the administrative costs and potential reporting burdens associated with expanding federal statistical programs. It also highlights the tension between the desire for timely data and the inherent complexities of developing robust new measurement methodologies for a rapidly evolving technology.
The bill defines 'artificial intelligence' by referencing section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (15 U.S.C. 9401).
Section 4
Why it matters:Referencing existing definitions is standard legislative practice to ensure consistency across federal law and avoid redundancy. It is not intended to be evasive.
Case for: Supporters argue that using an established federal definition for AI ensures consistency with broader national AI policy and prevents ambiguity or conflicting interpretations across different government initiatives. It leverages existing legislative work and and expertise.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on an external definition requires readers to consult another statute, potentially making the bill less self-contained and immediately understandable. If the referenced definition were to change, it could alter the scope of this bill without direct amendment.
Estimated impact: Ensures a consistent understanding of 'artificial intelligence' for the purpose of BLS data collection, aligning this bill with the broader National AI Initiative.