AI DATA Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 10, 2026
Bottom line
The AI DATA Act aims to significantly enhance the federal government's ability to collect, analyze, and disseminate data on how artificial intelligence is transforming the American labor market.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the AI DATA Act, mandates several new data collection activities for federal agencies to better understand the impact of artificial intelligence and related technologies on the U.S. workforce. It requires monthly establishment surveys on labor market flows, recurring household surveys on time-use and labor force participation, and longitudinal surveys to track individuals' long-term economic outcomes. Additionally, it directs the Census Bureau to incorporate AI-related questions into its Business Trends and Outlook Survey and mandates an annual joint report by the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce on AI's workforce impact.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is crucial for developing informed policy responses to the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence. They contend that current data collection methods are insufficient to capture the nuanced impacts of AI on job creation, displacement, skill requirements, and economic mobility, making it difficult for policymakers, educators, and workers to prepare for future workforce needs. Better data will enable targeted investments in training and support programs.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the potential for increased administrative burden on businesses required to participate in new surveys, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. They could also argue about the cost of implementing these new data collection mandates, especially given the 'such sums as may be necessary' appropriation language, and potential privacy implications related to the collection of detailed individual and business data, even if aggregated.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 3, amending Section 15(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act
Labor Market Flow Data Collection
This provision requires the Secretary of Labor to conduct a new monthly establishment survey. This survey will collect data on job openings, hiring, and separations (including quits and layoffs), grouped by industry, occupation, and geographic area. The data must be sufficient to assess how technological changes, including artificial intelligence and automation, affect labor demand.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that real-time, detailed labor market flow data is essential for understanding the dynamic impacts of AI on employment. This data will allow for quicker identification of sectors experiencing job growth or decline due to automation, enabling more agile policy responses and workforce training initiatives.
Critics contend
Some businesses might argue that a new monthly survey adds to their administrative burden, potentially diverting resources from core operations. Concerns could also be raised about the granularity of data requested and potential implications for proprietary business information, even if aggregated.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for comprehensive, timely data to inform public policy with the potential for increased reporting burden on businesses. It also aims to capture the specific impacts of technological change, which requires detailed data collection that may be more complex than existing surveys.
Section 4, amending Section 15(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act
Time-Use and Labor Force Participation Data Collection
This section mandates a new recurring household survey conducted by the Secretary of Labor. The survey will measure how individuals allocate their time across various activities, including work, caregiving, household production, and education. Crucially, it will include measures to evaluate the use of digital tools and emerging technologies in the workplace, with annual data dissemination to assess AI's effects on work patterns and labor force participation.
Section 5, amending Section 15(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act
Longitudinal Labor Market Data Collection
This section directs the Secretary of Labor to conduct longitudinal surveys that follow individuals over extended periods. These surveys will track employment, earnings, occupational mobility, education, training, and other related outcomes. New survey cohorts will be initiated every 10 years to ensure the data remains representative and contemporary, specifically including measures to evaluate the long-term effects of technological change, including AI, on economic mobility and job stability.
Section 6
AI Workforce Reporting Through the Business Trends and Outlook Survey
This section directs the Director of the Census, in coordination with the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, to add questions and analysis to the existing Business Trends and Outlook Survey (BTOS). These additions will assess the adoption of artificial intelligence and related technologies by businesses and their impact on the workforce, including changes in hiring, separations, job openings, occupational demand, and business operations. The collected data will be published quarterly and the authority for this section will sunset after 10 years.
Section 7
Annual Report on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Workforce
This section mandates an annual report, jointly published by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce, assessing the impact of artificial intelligence and related technologies on the U.S. workforce. The report must integrate data from the Business Trends and Outlook Survey, various Bureau of Labor Statistics datasets (labor market flow, time-use, longitudinal, projection data), and other relevant federal data. It will analyze changes in hiring, separations, job openings, occupational demand, industry-level impacts, and broader workforce effects like earnings and training patterns. This authority also sunsets after 10 years.
The bill defines 'artificial intelligence' by referencing section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (15 U.S.C. 9401).
Section 2(1)
Why it matters:Referencing existing statutory definitions is standard legislative practice to ensure consistency across federal law and avoid redundancy. It is not necessarily evasive.
Case for: Using an existing, established definition for AI ensures that the data collection and reporting activities under this bill align with broader federal AI policy and avoids creating conflicting definitions that could lead to confusion or inconsistent application.
Case against: For a reader unfamiliar with the referenced statute, the precise scope of 'artificial intelligence' as intended by this bill may not be immediately clear, requiring additional research to fully understand the technologies being targeted for data collection.
Estimated impact: This definition dictates the scope of all AI-related data collection and reporting mandates within the bill, affecting which technologies and their impacts are measured.
The authority for incorporating AI workforce reporting into the Business Trends and Outlook Survey (Section 6) and for publishing the annual report on AI's workforce impact (Section 7) will terminate 10 years after the date of enactment.
Section 6(d) and Section 7(d)
Why it matters:Sunset clauses are often included to ensure that programs or authorities are re-evaluated by Congress after a specified period, allowing for adjustments based on experience or changing circumstances. This is a common legislative practice.
Case for: Including a sunset clause ensures that these data collection and reporting activities are not perpetual. It provides an opportunity for Congress to review their effectiveness, cost, and continued relevance after a decade of implementation, allowing for necessary updates or termination if no longer needed.
Case against: A 10-year sunset might create uncertainty for agencies planning long-term data infrastructure and analytical capabilities. Critics could argue that understanding AI's long-term impacts requires ongoing, uninterrupted data collection, and that a sunset could disrupt critical research and policy development.
Estimated impact: These clauses limit the duration of two key AI-related data collection and reporting mandates to 10 years, requiring future legislative action to continue them.