CHILD Labor Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 17, 2026
Bottom line
The CHILD Labor Act aims to comprehensively strengthen federal child labor laws, increase corporate accountability for violations across supply chains, and enhance the Department of Labor's enforcement capabilities through expanded definitions, stiffer penalties, and broader application to federal contracts.
What it actually does
This bill significantly expands the definition of "oppressive child labor" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), increasing civil and criminal penalties for violations and introducing compensatory and punitive damages for affected employees. It establishes liability for companies whose contractors or subcontractors employ child labor in their supply chains and grants the Department of Labor (DOL) new enforcement powers, including the authority to issue stop work orders and affix "Unlawfully manufactured; child labor" tags to goods. Furthermore, the bill extends child labor requirements to federal contractors and recipients of federal financial assistance under the Walsh-Healey, Davis-Bacon, and Service Contract Acts, mandating training and labor-management committees.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a critical response to a documented rise in child labor violations across the United States, particularly among vulnerable populations. They contend that existing laws are insufficient to deter exploitation and that the expanded definitions, increased penalties, and supply chain liability provisions are necessary to protect children from dangerous and life-threatening work, ensuring that companies are held fully accountable for labor abuses within their operations and extended networks.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that the bill imposes excessive and potentially unmanageable regulatory burdens on businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, by broadening the definition of child labor and extending liability to entire supply chains. They might contend that the significantly increased penalties and new enforcement tools, such as stop work orders and product tagging, could lead to overreach by the Department of Labor and create an environment of uncertainty that stifles economic activity and job creation, without necessarily targeting the root causes of child labor.
The bill is moderately complex due to its amendments to existing statutes and new definitions, requiring careful reading. The estimated reading time of 15-20 minutes is reasonable for an informed reader to grasp its core provisions.
Sec. 101(a), (b)
Expanded Definition of Oppressive Child Labor and Hazardous Occupations
This provision redefines "oppressive child labor" to explicitly include employment of any individual under 18 in manufacturing, mining, trenching/excavation, meat processing, demolition, or explosives. It also grants the Secretary of Labor authority to declare other occupations or places of work as dangerous or detrimental for those under 18, or for 14- and 15-year-olds, and mandates regular updates to these hazardous occupation regulations. Employment of anyone under 14 (outside of parental employment) is also deemed oppressive child labor.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that explicitly listing high-risk industries for under-18 workers and mandating regular updates to hazardous occupation regulations closes critical loopholes in existing child labor laws. This proactive approach ensures that protections keep pace with evolving workplace dangers and prevents children from being exposed to inherently unsafe environments, which is crucial given recent increases in child labor violations.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that expanding the definition of oppressive child labor to include all individuals under 18 in a broad range of industries, regardless of specific task or safety measures, could be overly restrictive. They may argue it could limit legitimate work opportunities for older teenagers, impose unnecessary burdens on employers, and that a more nuanced approach focusing on specific hazardous tasks rather than entire industries would be more appropriate.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of comprehensive child protection with potential impacts on youth employment opportunities and regulatory burdens on businesses. It aims to prevent harm by broadly prohibiting certain types of work, but this breadth could also limit vocational training or entry-level jobs for older minors in these sectors.
Sec. 102(a)
Secondary Liability for Supply Chain Child Labor
This section prohibits any person from producing, manufacturing, or offering goods or services if a contractor or subcontractor (at any tier) in their supply chain employs oppressive child labor. A "good faith defense" is provided if the person relied on written assurances, had no notice of a violation, and took meaningful steps to ensure compliance throughout their supply chain.
Sec. 102(e)
Authority to Issue Stop Work Orders
This provision grants the Secretary of Labor the 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 in violation, and remain in effect until the violation is remedied. Importantly, any individual engaged to perform work who cannot do so due to a stop work order must be compensated at their regular rate for all hours they would have worked.
Sec. 103(a), (b), (c), (d)
Strengthening Penalties and Damages for Child Labor Violations
This section dramatically increases civil penalties for child labor violations, with base penalties of $160,350 per employee (doubled for repeated/willful violations, hazardous occupations, or multiple children involved) and $728,760 for violations causing death or serious injury (also doubled in certain cases). It also introduces compensatory damages (minimum $75,000, doubled for hazardous work, $750,000 for death/serious injury) and punitive damages (minimum $1,000,000 for death/serious injury) for victims. The statute of limitations for child labor violations is extended to 10 years, and criminal penalties are increased, including fines up to $750,000 and imprisonment.
Sec. 201, Sec. 202
Child Labor Requirements for Federal Contractors and Assistance Recipients
These sections extend comprehensive child labor prohibitions to federal contractors and recipients of federal financial assistance under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, and the Service Contract Act. Contractors and recipients are prohibited from employing individuals under 16, or 16-17 year olds in oppressive child labor, and are held liable for violations by their subcontractors/suppliers. They must provide training on child labor requirements and establish labor-management committees. Violations can lead to liquidated damages, contract cancellation, and a 3-year prohibition from receiving new federal contracts or assistance.
Sec. 301
Reports to Congress on Work-Related Injuries, Illnesses, and Deaths
This section mandates that the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and relevant State agencies, collect and analyze data on overall trends for work-related injuries, illnesses, or deaths, and trends related to enforcement under federal or state law. Annually, the Secretary must submit a report to Congress summarizing this data, evaluating the status of work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths, and providing recommendations. These reports must also be published in the Federal Register and on the Department of Labor website.
The bill introduces and consistently defines the term "successor in interest" across various sections, including FLSA child labor provisions and federal contract requirements. A successor in interest is liable for violations of a previous employer or person if they use substantially the same facilities or workers, employ a managing agent responsible for labor conditions from the previous entity, or have an owner/partner/officer/director who is an immediate family member of the previous entity's leadership and is in the same industry.
Sec. 102(d), Sec. 201(b)(2), Sec. 202(a)(4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms that apply to specific enforcement mechanisms. While technical, it is a crucial element for preventing evasion of liability.
Case for: Proponents argue that the successor in interest definition is vital to prevent employers from evading child labor penalties and obligations by simply reorganizing or transferring assets to a new entity. It ensures continuity of accountability, making it harder for bad actors to escape justice and protecting victims.
Case against: Critics might argue that the definition of "successor in interest," particularly the inclusion of immediate family members in leadership, could be overly broad and create unintended liability for legitimate business transfers or family-owned enterprises. They may contend it could complicate business transactions and deter investment, even when there is no intent to evade labor laws.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the scope of entities that can be held liable for child labor violations, potentially increasing the number of successful enforcement actions and victim compensations.
The bill includes a "good faith defense" for persons or contractors who are found to have child labor in their supply chain or federal contract. This defense applies if they entered into a contract with a prime subcontractor/supplier in good faith reliance on a written assurance that no oppressive child labor would be employed, had no notice of the violation, and took meaningful and affirmative steps to ensure compliance throughout the supply chain.
Sec. 102(a)(2)(B), Sec. 201(b)(1), Sec. 202(b)(2)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to balance broad liability with protections for entities that genuinely attempt to comply. It's a critical detail for businesses to understand their actual risk.
Case for: Proponents argue that this defense is crucial for fairness, ensuring that companies making genuine efforts to prevent child labor in their supply chains are not unduly penalized for unforeseen violations by distant subcontractors. It incentivizes due diligence without imposing impossible standards.
Case against: Critics might argue that the "good faith defense" could be difficult to prove in practice and might create loopholes for companies that do not rigorously monitor their supply chains. They may contend that the standard of "meaningful and affirmative steps" could be open to interpretation, potentially undermining the bill's intent to hold companies fully accountable.
Estimated impact: Provides a pathway for businesses to avoid liability if they can demonstrate robust compliance efforts, potentially influencing how companies structure their supply chain oversight.
For applicable federal contracts and assistance, the bill requires the contractor or recipient, and any subcontractor or supplier at any tier, to establish a labor-management committee. These committees are tasked with reviewing child labor policies and promoting the reporting of any violations of such policies.
Sec. 202(b)(1)(C)
Why it matters:This is a detailed operational requirement for federal contractors, a common place for such specifics in legislation. It's a mechanism for internal compliance and oversight.
Case for: Proponents argue that mandating labor-management committees fosters a culture of internal accountability and transparency regarding child labor policies. These committees provide a direct channel for workers to report violations and for management to proactively address issues, thereby strengthening compliance from within the organization.
Case against: Critics might argue that mandating the creation of labor-management committees adds an administrative burden and cost, particularly for smaller contractors or subcontractors, without a clear guarantee of effectiveness. They may contend that existing internal compliance mechanisms or external oversight are sufficient, and that a one-size-fits-all committee requirement may not be the most efficient approach for all entities.
Estimated impact: Imposes a new organizational and administrative requirement on a wide range of federal contractors and their supply chains, potentially increasing internal oversight of labor practices.