Keep Call Centers in America Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Gallego, Ruben [D-AZ]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 29, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to protect American call center jobs and enhance consumer transparency by penalizing companies that offshore call center operations and by requiring disclosures about customer service agent locations and AI use.
What it actually does
This bill requires 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. It also mandates that call center work under federal contracts be performed within the United States and requires businesses to disclose the physical location of customer service agents and the use of artificial intelligence during customer service communications, offering consumers the option to be transferred to a U.S.-based human agent.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill will protect American jobs by disincentivizing companies from moving call center operations overseas and ensure that taxpayer money is not used to subsidize such offshoring. They also contend that increased transparency regarding customer service agent locations and the use of AI empowers consumers and supports domestic employment.
Opponents contend
Critics may argue that the bill imposes significant regulatory burdens and costs on businesses, limiting their operational flexibility and potentially hindering global competitiveness. They might also suggest that these increased costs could ultimately be passed on to consumers or lead to reduced service efficiency.
The bill is relatively concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Title I, Sec. 101
Offshoring List and Federal Funding Ineligibility
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, specifically if it involves at least 30 percent of the call center's volume. The Secretary must then establish and maintain a public list of these employers. Companies on this list become ineligible for federal grants or guaranteed loans for five years, with penalties for non-notification. Exceptions can be made if a lack of funding would threaten national security, result in substantial U.S. job loss, or harm the environment.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses job flight by creating a strong financial disincentive for companies to move call center jobs overseas, thereby protecting American workers and ensuring taxpayer funds are not used to support such practices.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that these measures impose undue burdens on businesses, limiting their flexibility to operate efficiently in a global economy and potentially increasing costs that could be passed on to consumers or reduce competitiveness.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of protecting domestic jobs with concerns about business autonomy and potential economic inefficiencies that could arise from restricting global operational strategies.
Title I, Sec. 104
Federal Contract Call Center Work Location
This section mandates that any call center work performed in connection with a civilian or defense-related federal contract, or any subcontract under such a contract, must be carried out within the United States. This means federal agencies awarding contracts must include this requirement as a condition.
Title II, Sec. 201
Customer Service Location and AI Disclosure
This provision requires business entities engaged in customer service communications to 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 offered an immediate transfer to a U.S.-based agent. Additionally, if artificial intelligence is used for customer service, the business must disclose this and offer a transfer to a U.S.-based human operator. Exceptions apply for fully U.S.-based entities, consumer-initiated calls to known foreign entities, and emergency services.
If an employer receives a federal grant or guaranteed loan and is subsequently added to the offshoring list, they must pay a monthly penalty equal to 8.3 percent of the total dispersed amount of the grant or loan. They also become ineligible for further disbursements. If they remain on the list for one year, the grant or loan is cancelled, and the penalty amounts are reallocated to the awarding agency's program.
Sec. 101(b)(1)(B)
Why it matters:While providing specific consequences is standard legislative practice, the detailed financial mechanism for existing awards could be easily missed by a casual reader focusing on the primary disincentive for future funding.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provision ensures accountability for companies that benefit from federal funds and then offshore jobs, acting as a strong disincentive and protecting taxpayer investments.
Case against: Critics might contend that this is a punitive measure that could destabilize ongoing projects or create financial uncertainty for companies that made business decisions based on prior regulations, potentially leading to unforeseen negative economic impacts.
Estimated impact: Could result in significant financial penalties and loss of federal funding for companies that have already received federal support and then offshore, potentially impacting millions or billions of dollars in existing awards.
The definitions for 'contracting call center work overseas' and 'relocating' specify that the bill's provisions apply only if the transfer of work or cessation of operations comprises '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:It is standard legislative practice to define terms precisely in a dedicated section. However, the specific threshold is a critical determinant of the bill's applicability and could be overlooked by those not meticulously reviewing definitions.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this threshold provides a clear, measurable standard for when the bill's penalties and restrictions apply, ensuring that minor operational adjustments do not trigger severe consequences while still capturing significant offshoring activities.
Case against: Critics might suggest that this specific percentage is arbitrary or could be difficult to accurately measure, potentially leading to disputes or allowing companies to strategically offshore just under the threshold to avoid penalties.
Estimated impact: This threshold directly determines which employers and how many jobs are subject to the bill's core provisions, significantly impacting the overall effectiveness of the legislation in preventing offshoring.
This section requires business entities using artificial intelligence for customer service communications to disclose this fact at the beginning of the interaction and offer the consumer an immediate transfer to a human operator who is physically located in the United States.
Sec. 201(b)
Why it matters:It's a specific operational detail within a section that also covers agent location disclosure. Its placement might lead a reader to focus on the more general transparency aspects rather than the specific implications for AI and domestic labor.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision enhances consumer choice and transparency regarding AI interaction, while simultaneously supporting U.S. human customer service jobs by providing a direct pathway for consumers to opt for domestic human assistance.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this imposes additional operational requirements and costs on businesses adopting AI, potentially hindering innovation, increasing call handling times, or making AI less attractive as a cost-saving measure.
Estimated impact: Could influence the rate of AI adoption in customer service and the retention or creation of human customer service jobs in the U.S., potentially affecting millions of customer interactions annually.