AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 5, 2025
Bottom line
The AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act establishes a federal reporting framework to track and analyze the effects of artificial intelligence on the U.S. labor market, aiming to provide data for informed policy development.
What it actually does
This bill mandates quarterly disclosures from covered entities, including publicly-traded companies, federal agencies, and certain non-publicly-traded companies, to the Secretary of Labor regarding artificial intelligence-related job impacts. These disclosures must detail the number of layoffs, hires, unfilled positions, and individuals retrained due to AI. The Secretary of Labor is then required to compile, analyze, and publicly publish these reports on a quarterly and biennial basis.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is crucial for understanding the rapidly evolving impact of artificial intelligence on the workforce. They contend that comprehensive data on AI-related job displacement, creation, and retraining is essential for developing informed policy responses, supporting workers, and ensuring a smooth transition in the economy. Without such data, policymakers would be operating in the dark regarding one of the most significant technological shifts of our time.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the reporting requirements impose an undue burden on businesses, particularly smaller entities, potentially stifling innovation or creating administrative overhead without clear benefits. They may also raise concerns about the confidentiality of proprietary business information, even with provisions for protection, and question the accuracy or completeness of self-reported data.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and easy comprehension by an informed reader.
Section 2(a)
Quarterly AI-Related Job Impact Disclosures
This section requires publicly-traded companies, federal agencies, and certain non-publicly-traded companies to report quarterly to the Secretary of Labor. The reports must detail the number of employees laid off, hired, or positions left unfilled due to AI, as well as individuals retrained because of AI. Entities must also provide North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes with their disclosures.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these disclosures are fundamental to gathering the necessary data to understand the real-world impact of AI on employment. They believe that without this granular, company-level data, it is impossible to accurately assess job displacement, creation, and the need for retraining, which is vital for effective policy formulation.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that these reporting requirements are overly prescriptive and burdensome, especially for companies that are already navigating complex regulatory landscapes. They may argue that the data collected could be misinterpreted or misused, and that the administrative costs of compliance could outweigh the benefits of the information gathered.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's need for data on AI's labor impact against the administrative burden placed on businesses and concerns about proprietary information.
Section 2(b)
Public Reporting and Analysis by the Secretary of Labor
This section directs the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to prepare and publish reports. Quarterly reports will summarize the disclosed data, with an annual summary for the calendar year. Every other quarter, the Secretary must also prepare an analytical report on the net impact of AI-related job changes. All reports and underlying data are to be published on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website and submitted to Congress.
Section 2(c)
Rulemaking for Non-Publicly-Traded Company Inclusion
This section requires the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Secretary of the Treasury, to issue regulations within 180 days to determine which non-publicly-traded companies will be subject to the reporting requirements. The regulations must identify categories of companies with significant workforce or economic impact, consider thresholds like employee count or revenue, ensure proportionality of reporting burdens, and establish procedures for confidential data submission.
The bill defines "artificial intelligence" by referencing section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (15 U.S.C. 9401), rather than providing a standalone definition.
Section 2(d)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing federal definitions. It is not necessarily evasive, but it does require extra effort from the reader.
Case for: Referencing an existing, established definition ensures consistency across federal initiatives and avoids creating conflicting definitions of a complex and evolving technology. It streamlines the legislative text.
Case against: A reader unfamiliar with the referenced Act would need to consult external legal text to fully grasp the scope of the bill, potentially hindering immediate comprehension.
Estimated impact: The specific definition of AI will significantly influence what technologies and related job impacts are covered by the reporting requirements, thus shaping the scope of data collected.
The bill defines "publicly-traded company" by referencing section 5003(a) of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (15 U.S.C. 9009c(a)), relying on an external statutory definition.
Section 2(d)(4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for consistency and brevity, leveraging existing legal frameworks rather than creating a new definition.
Case for: Using an established definition for "publicly-traded company" provides clarity and avoids ambiguity, leveraging existing legal frameworks.
Case against: Requires external research for full understanding, potentially slowing down a reader's comprehension.
Estimated impact: This definition determines a significant portion of the "covered entities" that will be immediately subject to the reporting requirements, thus defining a major segment of the bill's initial reach.