Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Workforce, Oversight and Government Reform, and Armed Services, for a period t…
This bill, the Keep Call Centers in America Act of 2025, would (1) require employers to notify the Secretary of Labor at least 120 days before relocating a call center or contracting call-center work overseas and would create a public list of employers that do so; (2) make employers on that list ineligible for federal grants or guaranteed loans for up to 5 years (with narrow waivers for national security, substantial U.S. job loss, or environmental harm) and impose penalties and clawbacks for noncompliance; (3) require federal contractors to have any call-center work performed inside the United States and direct the Secretary of Labor to report on federal call-center locations and AI-related job impacts; and (4) require business customer-service agents to disclose their physical location (and use of AI) at the start of communications, allow consumers to request immediate transfer to a U.S.-based human agent, mandate annual FTC certification of compliance, and subject violations to FTC enforcement. The bill defines covered employers and thresholds (generally employers with 50+ call-center employees or equivalent hours) and sets compliance timelines for agencies and business entities.
Use of federal coercion vs incentives: liberals/centrists more willing to accept strong procurement and funding penalties to keep jobs domestic; conservatives prefer incentives and limited federal intervention.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive policy change that includes detailed definitions, concrete thresholds, clear penalties, named implementing entities, and enforcement and reporting requirements.
This bill, the Keep Call Centers in America Act of 2025, would (1) require employers to notify the Secretary of Labor at least 120 days before relocating a call center or contracting call-center work overseas and would create a public list of employers that do so; (2) make employers on that list ineligible for federal grants or guaranteed loans for up to 5 years (with narrow waivers for national security, substantial U.S. job loss, or environmental harm) and impose penalties and clawbacks for noncompliance; (3) require federal contractors to have any call-center work performed inside the United States and direct the Secretary of Labor to report on federal call-center locations and AI-related job impacts; and (4) require business customer-service agents to disclose their physical location (and use of AI) at the start of communications, allow consumers to request immediate transfer to a U.S.-based human agent, mandate annual FTC certification of compliance, and subject violations to FTC enforcement.
The bill defines covered employers and thresholds (generally employers with 50+ call-center employees or equivalent hours) and sets compliance timelines for agencies and business entities.
As written, the bill is a focused, moderately ambitious package with tangible policy tools that could win political appeal on job-retention and consumer-transparency grounds, but it also creates punitive financial consequences, procurement mandates, and regulatory obligations that attract strong stakeholder pushback and legal scrutiny. These friction points make enactment less likely in its present form without significant narrowing, legal vetting, or compromise amendments.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive policy change that includes detailed definitions, concrete thresholds, clear penalties, named implementing entities, and enforcement and reporting requirements. It integrates with existing law (notably FTC authorities) and anticipates many common edge cases and exceptions.
Use of federal coercion vs incentives: liberals/centrists more willing to accept strong procurement and funding penalties to keep jobs domestic; conservatives prefer incentives and limited federal intervention.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Use of federal coercion vs incentives: liberals/centrists more willing to accept strong procurement and funding penalties to keep jobs domestic; conservatives prefer incentives and limited federal intervention.
A mainstream liberal would likely view this bill favorably as a pro-worker, pro-consumer measure that seeks to preserve U.S. jobs, increase transparency, and protect consumers from opaque AI interactions.
They would see the public list and grant/loan ineligibility as meaningful deterrents to offshoring and the procurement rules as a way to use federal buying power to keep work domestic.
They would also welcome the AI-disclosure and consumer right to be transferred to a U.S.-based human as a consumer-protection and labor-support measure.
A pragmatic centrist would see the bill's aims—preserving U.S. jobs and improving consumer transparency—as reasonable, but would be cautious about potential unintended consequences, administrative complexity, and legal risks.
They would appreciate the report requirement and the limited exceptions for national security, substantial domestic job loss, or environmental harm, but would want clearer definitions and implementation details to avoid costly litigation and procurement disruption.
Overall they would likely be conditionally supportive if the bill were refined to reduce compliance ambiguity and administrative strain.
A mainstream conservative would be critical of the bill as an overreach that interferes with private business decisions, federal contracting flexibility, and free markets.
They would view the ineligibility for federal grants/loans, the public shaming list, and the procurement mandates as coercive tools that could make U.S. firms less competitive and increase costs for taxpayers and federal agencies.
While sympathetic to the goal of keeping jobs in America, they would prefer market-based incentives rather than punitive restrictions and would be concerned about legal challenges and international trade implications.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
As written, the bill is a focused, moderately ambitious package with tangible policy tools that could win political appeal on job-retention and consumer-transparency grounds, but it also creates punitive financial consequences, procurement mandates, and regulatory obligations that attract strong stakeholder pushback and legal scrutiny. These friction points make enactment less likely in its present form without significant narrowing, legal vetting, or compromise amendments.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Use of federal coercion vs incentives: liberals/centrists more willing to accept strong procurement and funding penalties to keep jobs dome…
As written, the bill is a focused, moderately ambitious package with tangible policy tools that could win political appeal on job-retention…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive policy change that includes detailed definitions, concrete thresholds, clear penalties, named implementing entities, and enforcement a…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.