Blab AI
Congress Unveils Draft Great American AI Act, Introducing WARN Notice Changes and Expanded Whistleblower Protections
On June 4, Representatives Jay Obernolte (R‑CA) and Lori Trahan (D‑MA) released a 269‑page discussion draft of the Great American AI Act, a bipartisan effort to carve out a federal framework for artificial intelligence. The draft tackles model safety, workforce protections, and state preemption, and it already enjoys the support of Speaker Mike Johnson and several co‑sponsors.
Although still a discussion draft, the proposal signals a concerted attempt to bring the AI landscape under federal oversight. It has already drawn criticism from labor advocates, civil‑society groups, and a House Democratic AI commission that issued an opposing statement within hours of the release.
A central feature of the bill is a three‑year preemption of state laws that regulate AI development. Under the draft, the construction and training of frontier AI models would fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction. The preemption does not extend to how AI is used or deployed in the workplace, leaving state statutes such as Colorado’s algorithmic‑discrimination law, California’s ADMT regulations, Illinois’s AI Video Interview Act, Connecticut’s new AI law, and New York City’s audit requirements intact. Likewise, state privacy laws that impose AI‑related employment obligations—like Delaware’s recent legislation—remain unaffected.
The draft revises the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Employers with 100 or more employees would now have to give 60‑day notice before a mass layoff. Crucially, if AI is a substantial factor in the layoff, the notice must identify the AI system, estimate the proportion of job losses attributable to AI, and explain any up‑skilling or retraining measures undertaken. A good‑faith compliance standard is introduced, and the Secretary of Labor would have 300 days to issue guidance on what constitutes a substantial factor.
In a bid to strengthen accountability, the proposal expands federal whistleblower protections to both employees and independent contractors who report “AI violations.” The term covers any breach of federal law or regulations related to AI development, deployment, or operation. The protections apply to all employers, not just large AI developers, and shield whistleblowers from retaliation—including discharge, demotion, suspension, threats, blacklisting, or harassment—when they disclose information to a regulatory official, the Attorney General, law enforcement, or Congress.
The draft also creates an AI Workforce Research Hub within the Department of Labor. The hub would evaluate AI’s impact on the workforce, conduct scenario planning, and provide insights for policymakers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau would update surveys to capture AI use and adoption. While the proposal does not impose immediate obligations on employers, the data it gathers could inform future enforcement, guidance, and litigation. Companies already tracking AI use internally would be better positioned as the federal data infrastructure develops.
Because the draft is a discussion document, it is unlikely to advance before the August recess, according to the Government Relations team. Employers are advised to monitor the draft’s progress and stay attuned to state AI developments, which continue to evolve independently of the federal bill. Reviewing internal AI use and preparing for potential WARN notice disclosures and whistleblower compliance will help organizations navigate the shifting regulatory landscape.
The Great American AI Act discussion draft represents the most comprehensive federal effort to date to regulate AI. By introducing new WARN notice requirements, expanding whistleblower protections, and establishing a federal research hub, it signals a shift toward a national AI framework. While the bill may not become law before the current Congress’s recess, it lays the groundwork for future regulatory activity, urging employers to remain informed about both federal and state developments and to assess how their AI practices align with the draft’s provisions.
Although still a discussion draft, the proposal signals a concerted attempt to bring the AI landscape under federal oversight. It has already drawn criticism from labor advocates, civil‑society groups, and a House Democratic AI commission that issued an opposing statement within hours of the release.
A central feature of the bill is a three‑year preemption of state laws that regulate AI development. Under the draft, the construction and training of frontier AI models would fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction. The preemption does not extend to how AI is used or deployed in the workplace, leaving state statutes such as Colorado’s algorithmic‑discrimination law, California’s ADMT regulations, Illinois’s AI Video Interview Act, Connecticut’s new AI law, and New York City’s audit requirements intact. Likewise, state privacy laws that impose AI‑related employment obligations—like Delaware’s recent legislation—remain unaffected.
The draft revises the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Employers with 100 or more employees would now have to give 60‑day notice before a mass layoff. Crucially, if AI is a substantial factor in the layoff, the notice must identify the AI system, estimate the proportion of job losses attributable to AI, and explain any up‑skilling or retraining measures undertaken. A good‑faith compliance standard is introduced, and the Secretary of Labor would have 300 days to issue guidance on what constitutes a substantial factor.
In a bid to strengthen accountability, the proposal expands federal whistleblower protections to both employees and independent contractors who report “AI violations.” The term covers any breach of federal law or regulations related to AI development, deployment, or operation. The protections apply to all employers, not just large AI developers, and shield whistleblowers from retaliation—including discharge, demotion, suspension, threats, blacklisting, or harassment—when they disclose information to a regulatory official, the Attorney General, law enforcement, or Congress.
The draft also creates an AI Workforce Research Hub within the Department of Labor. The hub would evaluate AI’s impact on the workforce, conduct scenario planning, and provide insights for policymakers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau would update surveys to capture AI use and adoption. While the proposal does not impose immediate obligations on employers, the data it gathers could inform future enforcement, guidance, and litigation. Companies already tracking AI use internally would be better positioned as the federal data infrastructure develops.
Because the draft is a discussion document, it is unlikely to advance before the August recess, according to the Government Relations team. Employers are advised to monitor the draft’s progress and stay attuned to state AI developments, which continue to evolve independently of the federal bill. Reviewing internal AI use and preparing for potential WARN notice disclosures and whistleblower compliance will help organizations navigate the shifting regulatory landscape.
The Great American AI Act discussion draft represents the most comprehensive federal effort to date to regulate AI. By introducing new WARN notice requirements, expanding whistleblower protections, and establishing a federal research hub, it signals a shift toward a national AI framework. While the bill may not become law before the current Congress’s recess, it lays the groundwork for future regulatory activity, urging employers to remain informed about both federal and state developments and to assess how their AI practices align with the draft’s provisions.
