Sen. Mark Kelly · 2025

Sen. Mark Kelly — "AI for America" Roadmap

Kelly

The most developed Democratic proposal for AI governance, focusing on worker protection and economic redistribution alongside safety and competitiveness. Kelly treats AI primarily as an economic disruption problem requiring institutional investment, proposing an industry-funded AI Horizon Fund for worker retraining and infrastructure.

Key Provisions

Regulatory Philosophy

Government-facilitated redistribution and proactive workforce adjustment. Kelly's approach treats AI primarily as an economic disruption problem requiring institutional investment, not just a safety or innovation problem. His emphasis on industry-funded transition mechanisms rather than taxpayer-funded programs distinguishes him from both the White House and progressive approaches.

Where the burden falls

FrontierUnspecifiedAppsUnspecifiedHyperscalersUnspecifiedChipsUnspecified
Base assessed
Undefined — the Horizon Fund names a payer but not a base
Why it lands there
The Horizon Fund is described as financed by leading AI companies, which names a payer without naming a base. Assessed on revenue, it lands on the frontier. Assessed on compute consumed, it lands on the app layer and passes to the hyperscalers. Assessed on headcount displaced, it lands on enterprise adopters and reaches no AI company at all. The base is the whole policy, and it is currently blank — which makes this the proposal most worth pressing a sponsor on.
Compare all proposals by layer →

Strengths

Derived from the proposal’s own policy documents

  • +The AI Horizon Fund creates a concrete, industry-funded mechanism for worker transition rather than leaving displaced workers to fend for themselves
  • +Advance notice requirements for AI-driven workforce changes give workers and communities time to prepare, modeled on proven WARN Act principles
  • +BLS data collection expansion would finally give policymakers real numbers on AI-driven job creation, displacement, and retraining outcomes
  • +Bipartisan security provisions with Sen. Young demonstrate the proposal can attract cross-aisle support
  • +Industry-funded rather than taxpayer-funded transition mechanisms place costs on the companies profiting from disruption

Weaknesses

From the perspective of political opposition

  • −The Horizon Fund is a slush fund with no teeth — voluntary industry 'contributions' to worker retraining is the same failed corporate social responsibility model that has never delivered meaningful results
  • −Completely ignores AI safety, pre-deployment testing, and catastrophic risk — as if the only problem with AI is that it costs jobs
  • −No enforcement mechanism for workforce change notifications — companies can simply ignore advance notice requirements the way they routinely ignore existing labor protections
  • −Frames AI disruption as a manageable adjustment problem when the scale of displacement could be civilizational, offering band-aids for bullet wounds
  • −The bipartisan framing is a way to avoid taking hard positions on preemption, liability, or any issue where industry might push back

Position on Analytical Frameworks

Enforcement Mechanism vs. Regulatory Scope

Prevention vs. Liability & Regulatory Authority

Innovation Priority vs. Worker Protection

Pre-deployment Obligations vs. Federal Preemption

← Back to all proposals