Dario Amodei is worried about the future of AI. That might seem unusual, given his line of work: Amodei is the co-founder and CEO of Anthropic, the company behind the large language model series Claude. But in a recent interview with 60 Minutes, the entrepreneur and research scientist warned that if we don’t put the proper safeguards in place now, the AI his team and others are designing could have dangerous consequences.

“AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs and spike unemployment to 10-20% in the next one to five years,” he told Anderson Cooper on the news program.

Amodei is just one of many AI experts who want to see more regulations around AI. Now, a new bipartisan bill might turn these wishes into reality. In November, Democratic Senator Mark Warner and Republican Senator Josh Hawley introduced the AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act, which would require publicly traded companies, some private companies, and federal agencies to submit quarterly reports disclosing AI-specific job losses and hiring changes. Promo companies that have made significant changes to their workforce due to AI, as well as those that have replaced or augmented human factory workers with automation, may be required to submit workforce reports to the Department of Labor if the bill passes.

AI has already had a sizeable impact on the American workforce over the last few years. According to data from Metaintro, an open-source job search engine that processes job-search data in near-real time, job postings with at least one AI skill requirement suggest a 28% salary premium. Meanwhile, according to a report from the World Economic Forum, half of employers plan to change their business because of AI, two-thirds plan to hire talent with AI-specific skills and 40% anticipate reducing their workforce where AI can automate tasks – all by 2030.

“Good policy starts with good data,” Sen. Warner said in a statement. “This bipartisan legislation will finally give us a clear picture of AI’s impact on the workforce – what jobs are being eliminated, which workers are being retrained and where new opportunities are emerging. Armed with this information, we can make sure AI drives opportunity instead of leaving workers behind.”

Increasing Oversight of Tech-Related Hiring and Firing

While the AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act is the first of its kind to hit the national stage, other legislation has been proposed or implemented at the state and local level. Edwin Aiwazian, CEO and co-managing attorney at Lawyers for Justice, a firm that specializes in employment law and personal injury cases, says the Act aligns with a broader trend toward increased government oversight around the impact of technology on the workforce.

In March 2025, New York became the first state to require employers to disclose whether AI and automation contributed to mass layoffs across their organizations. The law, which was enacted as an amendment to the state’s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, now requires employers with 50 or more employees to file a notice 90 days prior to a mass layoff or plant closure due to “technological innovation or automation.” It applies to activities that impact at least 25 workers or one-third of the workforce at a given site.

“Several existing employment laws already touch on transparency in workforce decisions,” Aiwazian says. “The WARN Act requires certain employers to provide notice before mass layoffs, and many states have their own versions with even stricter requirements. Anti-discrimination statutes also prohibit workforce decisions that disproportionately impact protected groups, including when new technologies are introduced.”

“When automation is introduced, workers need clear pathways to learn new skills or move into updated roles. Without that structure, companies increase the risk of claims that employees were unfairly pushed out or not given equal access to evolving opportunities.”Edwin Aiwazian, Lawyers for Justice

Aiwazian adds that while there is no federal law specifically regulating AI-related job displacement yet, agencies like the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor have signaled they will scrutinize how employers use automation in hiring, discipline and layoff decisions.

A federal law would apply similar requirements to companies across the country – and help inform the collective understanding of AI’s impact on the workforce.

New Legislation Could Prove Effective, but Key Terms Must Be Defined First

When it comes to AI’s impact on the workforce, words matter. Just ask Lacey Kaelani, the CEO of Metaintro.

“A majority of employers are immediately downsizing their workforce due to the introduction of AI,” she says. “However, a lot of them are referring to this change as 'restructuring' or 'efficiency gains.’”

The vague nature of this corporate vernacular, she says, ultimately confuses people about the true impact of AI at work. A federal law would help demystify some of these corporate initiatives, helping employees understand why they were laid off and giving the government additional data on the types of jobs that have been replaced by AI – and how many of them there are.

40%
The percentage of global leaders who anticipate reducing their workforce due to AI task automation by 2030.(Future of Jobs Report, World Economic Forum, 2025)

Some of the language in the AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act, however, is equally mystifying, says Kaelani.

“The real struggle will be determining what constitutes ‘AI-related job loss,’” she notes. “For example, does the use of software to automate workflow mean there is AI involved? Additionally, does the consolidation of three jobs into one in part because the job can now be performed by AI classify as ‘AI-related job loss?’”

These questions could extend to promo, as well. Consider the fact that a number of suppliers decreased their investment in foreign manufacturing and reshored their operations to the U.S. after President Trump announced plans to enact reciprocal tariffs. However, as the cost of labor is more expensive in the U.S. than in China, many firms have invested in automation for U.S.-based facilities. It is unclear whether these strategic moves would classify as “AI-related job loss,” since they are a response to geopolitical and economic changes.

“If the U.S. cares about their workforce and wants them to have relevant skills [and] livable wages, there must be transparency for these companies, and the only way to do that is through legislation.” Lacey Kaelani, Metaintro

Aiwazian defines “AI-related job loss” as any position that was eliminated, reduced or fundamentally changed because an employer adopted AI or automated systems that perform work previously handled by a human.

“Regulation will likely depend on how employers document their decision-making process,” he says. “Companies will need to show when automation was implemented, what work it replaced and how those changes affected staffing. If the reporting law passes, employers may need to categorize job losses tied to AI, disclose the scale of those reductions and demonstrate compliance with existing labor and anti-discrimination rules.”

Future-Proofing Your AI Reporting Process

While the bill has only been introduced, Aiwazian says companies can take steps now to set themselves up for success.

“The first step is to thoroughly document any AI or automated systems being implemented,” he advises. “Employers need a clear record of what the technology does, what tasks it replaces and how it changes the scope of existing roles. This documentation will be essential if questions arise about why certain positions were adjusted or eliminated.”

Second, he recommends developing internal policies around reskilling, redeployment and performance evaluation.

“When automation is introduced, workers need clear pathways to learn new skills or move into updated roles,” he adds. “Without that structure, companies increase the risk of claims that employees were unfairly pushed out or not given equal access to evolving opportunities.”

Finally, a firm’s HR and legal teams should collaborate on building and deploying a consistent decision-making framework. Workforce changes tied to AI must be applied uniformly, supported by evidence and fully compliant with anti-discrimination laws, Aiwazian says.

Ultimately, Kaelani says, the bill is about protecting the workforce amid rapid technological adoption.

“The only way to get companies to be honest about [layoffs] is to ask follow-ups, which can only be required if they were part of some sort of bill that was passed,” she says. “If the U.S. cares about their workforce and wants them to have relevant skills [and] livable wages, there must be transparency for these companies, and the only way to do that is through legislation.”