The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety held the hearing, titled “The Impact of AI on the Workforce,” at 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The witness panel included workforce-development, labor-policy, business and research representatives: Ken Clark, Carol Rogers, Liya Palagashvili, Jonathan Liebert and Justin Heck.

AI is likely to affect tasks differently

The central tension in the testimony was that AI is unlikely to produce one uniform result across the economy. Witnesses described AI as a tool that may assist workers, change the tasks they perform and create demand for new skills. In other occupations, employers may use automation and productivity tools to reduce or restructure parts of the work.

That distinction matters for workers and policymakers. A change in the tasks within a job can affect hiring, training and advancement even when the occupation itself does not disappear. Palagashvili’s written testimony also discussed limits in existing labor statistics, which can make it difficult to measure how quickly employers are adopting AI and how that adoption is changing work.

BLS projections show growth and decline across fields

Bureau of Labor Statistics projections for 2024 through 2034 provide a national baseline, but they are not a forecast of immediate, AI-only job losses. BLS says the projections reflect multiple economic and technological factors, including expected productivity gains from growing use of information technology and AI.

BLS projects especially strong growth in several computer, mathematical and information-security occupations. Employment is projected to rise 33.5% for data scientists, 28.5% for information security analysts, 21.5% for operations research analysts, 19.7% for computer and information research scientists and 15.8% for software developers between 2024 and 2034. The projected increase for software developers is 267,700 jobs, while data-scientist employment is projected to increase by 82,500.

At the same time, BLS projects weaker demand or declines in selected office-support and customer-service occupations. The agency projects declines of 8.7% for procurement clerks, 5.5% for customer-service representatives, 5.8% for legal secretaries and administrative assistants, and 1.6% for secretaries and administrative assistants outside the legal, medical and executive categories.

Those figures do not mean AI alone will eliminate every job in those categories. They point to occupations where BLS expects employment to decline over the decade as automation, digital tools and other economic forces affect productivity and labor demand.

Entry-level pathways are a major concern

Clark’s written testimony focused on the role of early-career jobs, internships and employer training. He argued that if businesses reduce junior positions while automating routine tasks, workers may have fewer ways to gain the experience traditionally needed for higher-level roles.

Clark also raised a concern for employers: fewer entry-level pathways could weaken future talent pipelines, particularly if companies expect workers to arrive with AI-related skills but provide limited training. In his testimony, he supported discussion of the AI Workforce PREPARE Act, but that legislation has not been enacted.

What workplace policy questions remain

The hearing raised questions about how employers should use AI in hiring and other employment decisions. Topics discussed or implied by the testimony included human accountability, transparency, bias, documentation, privacy and protection of sensitive or proprietary information.

Witnesses also pointed to the need for better labor-market data, retraining and AI literacy. For workers, AI literacy can include knowing how to evaluate automated outputs, recognize limitations and identify when human judgment is needed. For employers, the questions include how systems are tested, documented and reviewed when they affect hiring, evaluation or advancement.

These are policy questions under discussion, not new federal requirements created by the hearing. The hearing record should not be read as a finding that Congress has settled those issues or adopted a single approach.

What happens next

The July 29 hearing adds testimony to the congressional record and may inform future legislation, oversight or other official action. It did not itself create a new workplace-AI rule. Any binding federal requirement would require a later action through Congress or an agency acting under existing legal authority, along with the applicable procedures.

Workers and jobseekers should watch entry-level hiring, training access and employer policies on AI-assisted decisions. Employers and educators should track how AI use affects personal data, workplace review procedures and the skills attached to particular occupations. The most important changes may appear first in the design of tasks, the availability of junior roles and the training workers receive—not in the disappearance of an entire occupation.

Sources

• Senate HELP hearing record: “The Impact of AI on the Workforce”
• BLS Monthly Labor Review: 2024–34 projections overview

The agencies published an updated advocacy brief on July 30, 2026, arguing that breastfeeding support should be treated as part of child health, family policy and human-capital investment. The brief is an advocacy and investment case, not a treaty, regulation or binding decision by governments.

What changed

World Breastfeeding Week runs from August 1 through August 7, 2026, under the theme “Breastfeeding for a sustainable start in life: strengthen what works.” The campaign emphasizes tracking progress, evaluating impact and expanding interventions with an established evidence base.

The updated brief comes before a WHO and UNICEF webinar scheduled for August 4 and 5. WHO lists two sessions, at 8 a.m. Central European Summer Time on August 4 and 5 p.m. CEST on August 5, to accommodate different time zones. The event is intended to present the updated investment case, its methodology, intervention evidence and country perspectives. As of August 3, it had not occurred.

The investment case in numbers

WHO and UNICEF estimate that underfunding breastfeeding programs is associated with about US$339 billion in global economic losses each year. The estimate reflects modeled effects linked to preventable illness, lost cognitive development, reduced education, diminished productivity and related health costs. It is not a direct accounting of government spending or household costs.

The investment case uses a modeling tool that combines health, demographic and economic data. It examines three progressive intervention packages in 88 high-burden countries, modeled at 75% coverage over 2025–2035.

• The core health-system package, including breastfeeding counseling and the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, is projected to avert 224,000 child deaths and generate US$276 billion in economic benefits.
• An expanded package adding mass-media and behavior-change communications and enforcement of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes is projected to avert 254,000 child deaths and generate US$324 billion.
• The full package, adding paid maternity leave and breastfeeding-friendly workplace policies, is projected to avert 263,000 child deaths and generate US$357 billion.

These are projections, not observed outcomes or guarantees. They depend on assumptions about coverage, costs, baseline breastfeeding rates, country conditions and implementation quality. The results are concentrated in the high-burden countries studied and should not be generalized mechanically to every national context.

What the package includes

The modeled approach combines health-system support, public policy and workplace measures. It includes skilled infant and young child feeding counseling, implementation of the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, mass-media and social-behavior-change campaigns, enforcement of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, paid maternity leave and breastfeeding-friendly workplace policies.

The WHO and UNICEF brief cites systematic reviews reporting that paid maternity leave was associated with a 52% increase in exclusive breastfeeding. It also says workplace breastfeeding-support policies and programs were associated with an 8% increase. These are reported associations, not proof that one policy produces the same result in every setting.

Why leave and work conditions matter

Clinical advice can help, but it cannot replace time, income or job protection. Paid maternity leave can give a parent more time away from work after birth while preserving income and employment. Once a parent returns, practical support may include a private space, predictable breaks, flexibility in scheduling, and safe facilities for expressing and storing breast milk.

Those conditions can determine whether a family has a realistic choice about how to feed an infant. They also matter for workers in informal employment, who may not have formal leave rights, a fixed workplace or access to employer-provided facilities. Family-leave systems, eligibility rules and workplace protections vary widely across countries and types of employment.

The policy question is not whether every family should breastfeed in the same way. Families use breastfeeding, formula or mixed feeding for many reasons. The question is whether parents who want to breastfeed have meaningful support rather than facing avoidable workplace, health-system or commercial barriers.

The implementation gap

WHO and UNICEF say many countries have adopted supportive policies, but financing, accountability and enforcement remain uneven. A WHO, UNICEF and IBFAN status report published in May 2026 examined legal measures in 194 countries and found continuing gaps involving promotion, labeling, health-system safeguards, monitoring and enforcement of the International Code.

That distinction matters. A policy on paper may not provide paid leave to all eligible workers, ensure a functioning Baby-Friendly Hospital program or prevent inappropriate marketing. The investment case calls for coordinated national support packages rather than reliance on a single awareness campaign.

What to watch next

The immediate milestone is the WHO and UNICEF investment-case webinar scheduled for August 4–5. The practical questions are whether governments and donors commit predictable funding, how coverage will be measured, whether marketing rules will be enforced and how support will reach informal workers and other underserved families.

The central message of the 2026 campaign is that breastfeeding outcomes are shaped not only by personal behavior or clinical advice, but also by health services, leave systems, workplaces, regulation and public financing. WHO and UNICEF’s projections are modeled estimates, but they put a measurable child-health and economic cost on the gap between knowing what works and making it available.

Sources

• WHO and UNICEF breastfeeding investment brief
• WHO World Breastfeeding Week 2026