Make AI Work for Americans Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to proactively address the societal and economic impacts of artificial intelligence by taxing the AI industry to fund workforce development, social safety nets, and entrepreneurship initiatives.
What it actually does
This bill establishes the Artificial Intelligence Horizon Fund, a new federal fund designed to mitigate the economic and social disruptions caused by increased AI adoption. It creates new federal taxes on digital advertising, AI usage, and AI excess profits to fund this initiative. The bill also mandates federal minimum standards for state unemployment insurance programs, expands entrepreneurship and national service programs, and establishes new workforce development grants for community colleges and AI education initiatives.
Proponents argue
Supporters would argue that this bill is a forward-thinking and necessary approach to ensure that the benefits of AI are broadly shared across society, while proactively protecting and empowering workers in an evolving economy. It creates a dedicated, industry-funded stream to address potential job displacement and skill gaps, fostering a resilient workforce and promoting responsible AI development and deployment.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the new taxes on digital advertising, AI usage, and AI excess profits could stifle innovation and economic growth in the burgeoning AI sector, potentially making the U.S. less competitive globally. They might also argue that creating a new federal fund and advisory council adds unnecessary bureaucracy and that existing programs could be adapted to address AI impacts without imposing new taxes or federalizing state responsibilities.
The bill is extensive and covers many distinct policy areas, including complex tax provisions and detailed program changes, requiring significant time and careful reading to fully understand its implications.
Sec. 101, Title I
Establishment of Artificial Intelligence Horizon Fund and Advisory Council
This section establishes a new fund within the U.S. Treasury, administered by the Secretary of Labor, to invest in programs that expand economic security, create quality jobs, and mitigate harms from AI adoption. It also creates an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council to provide independent oversight and recommend how funds should be allocated, with specific guardrails on how funds can and cannot be used. The fund receives appropriations from new AI-related taxes and an initial repayable advance of $30 billion.
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue that a dedicated, independently advised fund is essential to proactively manage the profound economic and social shifts brought by AI, ensuring equitable distribution of benefits and robust support for those affected by technological change.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that creating a new fund and council adds bureaucratic layers and that existing agencies and funding mechanisms could be adapted to address AI impacts without establishing a new, potentially unwieldy, structure.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for dedicated funding and strategic oversight for AI impacts against concerns about creating new federal entities and potential administrative inefficiencies.
Sec. 201, Title II
Digital Advertising Tax
This section imposes a new 5% tax on digital advertising revenue received by 'covered taxpayers' from advertisements displayed to United States users. A 'covered taxpayer' is defined as a company with over $50 billion in total global revenue OR over $1 billion in U.S. revenue, AND over $50 million in U.S. digital advertising revenue. This tax is a primary funding source for the Artificial Intelligence Horizon Fund.
Sec. 202, Title II
Artificial Intelligence Usage Tax
This section imposes a tax of $1.10 per 1,000,000 units of computational processing used by a 'covered user' for content generation via a 'covered artificial intelligence processing service.' The first 1,000,000 units per user per year are exempt. Providers can elect to pay the tax and receive a credit for non-commercial use by qualified entities (higher education, research organizations).
Sec. 203, Title II
Artificial Intelligence Excess Profits Tax
This section imposes a 50% tax on the 'excess profits' of 'covered taxpayers' engaged in AI development, training, or providing computing for AI. Excess profit is defined as taxable income exceeding 40% of gross receipts. A 'covered taxpayer' includes entities with over $100 million in total revenue engaged in AI development or those that were 'covered AI electricity users' in the prior year, or those deriving over $100 million from providing AI computing services.
Sec. 301, Title III
Establishment of National Service for America's Future Program
This section establishes a new national service program within AmeriCorps to create paid service-to-career pathways into 'human-centered' jobs, particularly for workers affected by AI. Participants receive at least $20/hour (indexed to inflation) and a completion award. States receive grants to run programs, approving host sites (including for-profit businesses under strict conditions) and coordinating with workforce development systems.
Sec. 401, Title IV
Expansion and Funding of Entrepreneurs of the Future Program
This section amends the Internal Revenue Code and Social Security Act to expand and fund the 'Entrepreneurs of the Future' program (formerly Self-Employment Assistance). It removes the 5% cap on participants, eliminates the requirement that participants are likely to exhaust regular unemployment benefits, and broadens eligible activities to include entrepreneurial training and business counseling. States are now required to establish such programs and will be reimbursed 100% for allowances paid and administrative expenses from the AI Horizon Fund.
Sec. 501, 502, 503, 504, Title V
Establishment of Federal Floors for Unemployment Insurance Benefits
This title mandates new federal minimum standards for state unemployment insurance (UI) programs. This includes a minimum benefit duration of 26 weeks (Sec. 501), a minimum weekly benefit amount equal to the lesser of the state maximum or 75% of the individual's highest-earning quarter divided by 13 (Sec. 502), a maximum weekly benefit amount of at least two-thirds of the state's average weekly wage (Sec. 503), and a base period that includes the most recently completed calendar quarter (Sec. 504). States will receive federal reimbursement from the AI Horizon Fund for the increased costs of the minimum wage replacement floor.
Sec. 604, Title VI
Expansion of Individual Training Accounts for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers
This section amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) to expand the use of Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) for eligible youth, adults, and dislocated workers. It mandates a minimum ITA amount of $7,000 and allows funds from the AI Horizon Fund to supplement existing WIOA allocations for ITAs. For in-school youth under 18, secondary school approval is required, and specific eligibility criteria are outlined for youth.
Sec. 605, Title VI
Strengthening Community Colleges Workforce Development Grants Program
This section establishes a new competitive grant program for community colleges and postsecondary vocational institutions to create, improve, or expand high-quality workforce development programs. Grants are for up to 4 years, with renewals based on performance. Funds can be used for program development, career services, equipment, and reducing financial need. Priority is given to institutions serving individuals with barriers to employment or incumbent workers needing foundational skills, including AI literacy.
Sec. 702, Title VII
National Workforce Competency Initiative
This section establishes a national initiative within the Department of Labor to facilitate the development, dissemination, and adoption of voluntary, nationally recognized competency frameworks, model curricula, assessment tools, and industry-recognized credentials for high-demand occupations impacted by technological change. The Secretary of Labor will convene various stakeholders (labor, education, industry) and maintain a public repository of resources.
Sec. 703, Title VII
National Clearinghouse for Artificial Intelligence Education
This section establishes a national clearinghouse within the Department of Education to serve as a repository and collaboration platform for information, instructional resources, best practices, and model educational materials related to AI education for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels. It will disseminate guidance on responsible AI use, academic integrity, student privacy, and bias.
Sec. 704, Title VII
Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace Initiative
This section establishes an initiative within the Department of Labor, in consultation with the EEOC, to develop and disseminate best practices and guidance for the safe, responsible, and effective integration of AI technologies in the workplace. It will convene stakeholders (employers, labor, civil rights) and identify practices to mitigate risks related to worker privacy, bias, discrimination, transparency, and accountability, including worker participation in AI design and human review of consequential employment decisions.
The Artificial Intelligence Horizon Fund is to be appropriated an amount equivalent to the taxes received under the new Chapter 50B of Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which are the digital advertising, AI usage, and AI excess profits taxes established in Title II.
Sec. 101(b)(4)(A)(i)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for linking a fund to its revenue source, but it requires readers to navigate to a different section of the bill (and potentially the tax code) to understand the financial foundation of the fund.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this is a clear and direct way to establish a dedicated funding stream for the AI Horizon Fund, ensuring that the AI industry itself contributes to addressing the societal impacts of its growth.
Case against: Critics might argue that by linking the fund's appropriations to new and potentially complex taxes, the stability and predictability of the fund's resources could be subject to the volatility of these new revenue streams and the challenges of their implementation.
Estimated impact: This provision establishes the primary, ongoing revenue source for the multi-billion dollar Artificial Intelligence Horizon Fund.
The Artificial Intelligence Horizon Fund receives an initial appropriation of $30,000,000,000 as a repayable advance, to remain available until expended.
Sec. 101(b)(4)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:This is a common mechanism for providing upfront capital to a new fund, with a plan for repayment from future dedicated revenues. It's standard practice to detail repayment terms separately.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this substantial advance ensures the AI Horizon Fund has immediate capital to launch critical programs without waiting for new tax revenues to accumulate, demonstrating a strong commitment to addressing AI impacts quickly.
Case against: Critics might express concern that a large repayable advance could create a future fiscal obligation if the new tax revenues do not materialize as expected, or if the fund's spending outpaces its ability to repay.
Estimated impact: Provides a $30 billion initial capitalization for the AI Horizon Fund, with repayment mechanisms detailed.
The Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council's recommendations for fund allocation are subject to strict prohibitions, including not funding activities that violate privacy/civil rights, discriminate, supplant existing funds, displace existing employees, surveil workers, or interfere with rights to organize and collectively bargain.
Sec. 101(c)(4)(B)(iii)
Why it matters:This is a common drafting technique to embed policy directives within the administrative or procedural sections of a bill, ensuring that the fund's operations align with specific values and restrictions.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these prohibitions are essential to ensure the AI Horizon Fund promotes ethical and equitable AI development and deployment, safeguarding worker rights and civil liberties against potential misuse of AI technologies.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against these types of protective provisions, though some might argue that overly broad restrictions could inadvertently limit beneficial research or applications, or that enforcement could be challenging.
Estimated impact: These provisions set fundamental ethical and operational boundaries for all programs and initiatives funded by the Artificial Intelligence Horizon Fund.
A State shall not be eligible to receive federal reimbursement for the increased floor on minimum wage replacement for unemployment benefits if such State decreases its maximum weekly benefit amount under State law after the date of enactment.
Sec. 502(b)(6)
Why it matters:This is a tactical maneuver to prevent states from offsetting the increased federal UI mandates by reducing other aspects of their UI benefits, ensuring the federal intent of strengthening the safety net is not undermined.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this clause is necessary to prevent states from undermining the intent of the federal UI floors, ensuring that federal funds genuinely lead to improved benefits for unemployed workers rather than simply replacing state funding for reduced benefits.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision further restricts state autonomy over their UI systems and could be seen as punitive, potentially leading to states foregoing federal reimbursement rather than complying with the restriction.
Estimated impact: Prevents states from reducing their maximum weekly UI benefit amounts as a condition for receiving federal reimbursement for other mandated UI increases.
Amends Section 3306(t)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by striking '5 percent of' the number of individuals receiving regular unemployment compensation, thereby eliminating the cap on the number of individuals who can participate in the Entrepreneurs of the Future program.
Sec. 401(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is a common way to modify existing statutory limitations. While technically precise, it requires familiarity with the original text to grasp the full policy change.
Case for: Proponents would argue that removing the arbitrary cap on participation is crucial to allow more unemployed individuals to pursue entrepreneurship, maximizing the program's potential to foster innovation and job creation in a changing economy.
Case against: Critics might argue that removing the cap without careful consideration of program capacity or potential for misuse could strain administrative resources or lead to less effective outcomes if not properly managed.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the potential reach of the Entrepreneurs of the Future program by removing a numerical limitation on participants.