The U.S. Department of Labor has issued an artificial intelligence (AI) literacy framework that is designed to accelerate AI skill development. An appellate court ruled that the administration can continue implementing two executive orders concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Legislation guaranteeing paid sick leave has been introduced in Congress.

DOL Issues AI Literacy Framework – The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released an artificial intelligence (AI) literacy framework that includes five foundational content areas and seven delivery principles for AI literacy. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer stated, “Our new AI literacy framework provides guidance that will help accelerate effective AI skill development across the country.”

The foundational content areas are:

• Understand AI Principles – Develop a clear understanding of what AI is and how it works.
• Explore AI Uses – Understand how AI is being implemented in the workplace.
• Direct AI Effectively – Comprehend how best to interact with AI systems to obtain useful and relevant outcomes.
• Evaluate AI Outputs – Learn how to determine the quality and usefulness of the content generated by AI to ensure that it is accurate, comprehensive, and appropriate.  
• Use AI Responsibly – Determine appropriate uses of information generated by AI considering the limits of AI authority, the need to protect sensitive data, comply with workplace or legal requirements, and ensure accountability.

The AI framework delivery principles include:

• Enable Experiential Learning,
• Embed Learning in Context,
• Build Complementary Human Skills,
• Address Prerequisites to AI Literacy
• Create Pathways for Continuous Learning,
• Prepare Enabling Roles, and
• Design for Agility.

Appellate Court Lifts Injunction on DEI Executive Orders – The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the federal government can continue implementing two executive orders concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) while litigation continues in the district court. The appellate court stated that this case involved a “facial challenge to two Executive Orders concerning certain DEI programming, not the legality or termination of any particular DEI program. That makes all the difference.” The ruling would not prevent specific legal challenges in individual cases but does reject the allegations that the executive orders are unconstitutional on their face.

In January 2025, President Trump issued two executive orders that were challenged in the case of National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Donald J. Trump. The first executive order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” contained what the plaintiffs referred to as the termination provision that directs federal agencies to terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI offices and positions and DEI performance requirements for employees, contractors, or grantees.

The second executive order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” includes a certification provision and enforcement threat provision that are challenged. The certification provision instructs agency heads to include provisions requiring compliance with all federal anti-discrimination laws and certifying that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violates federal anti-discrimination laws. The enforcement threat provision directs the agencies with the assistance of the attorney general to prepare a report setting forth an action plan to deter DEI programs or principles that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.

The plaintiffs claimed the termination and enforcement threat provisions facially violated the Fifth Amendment and the certification and enforcement Threat provision facially violated the First Amendment. The district court found that the challenged provisions were likely unconstitutional and granted an injunction. The injunction prevented the federal government from bringing enforcement or termination actions but allowed the Attorney General to prepare the report challenged under the enforcement threat provision. The Fourth Circuit initially granted a stay of the injunction. 

The Fourth Circuit determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the enforcement threat provision. The required report was prepared and submitted to the president in June 2025 so the Fourth Circuit questioned “how an injunction could redress any plausible harm stemming from a report issued months ago” and the release of the report may have made the challenge to this provision moot.

The Fourth Circuit noted that the plaintiffs brought facial challenges to the termination and certification provisions meaning that they are “unconstitutional not as applied to [plaintiffs’] own conduct, but rather, on their face, as they apply to the population generally.” A facial challenge, according to the Fourth Circuit requires demonstration that the provision is unconstitutional in “all of its applications or that it lacks any plainly legitimate sweep.”

The appellate court believed that the termination provision instructed federal agencies to act only to the maximum extent allowed by law and is at this stage “nothing more than an outward-facing policy directive from the president to his agents.” If specific contracts have been terminated without considering their legality, the Fourth Circuit declared that an “as applied challenge” could be filed as opposed to a facial challenge.

Concerning the certification provision, the Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiffs have no constitutional right to operate DEI programs that violate federal antidiscrimination laws. The Fourth Circuit noted that the plaintiffs were challenging the way federal agencies were interpreting antidiscrimination law in relation to DEI programming. The Fourth Circuit concluded “If the President, his subordinates, or another grantor misinterprets federal antidiscrimination law, plaintiffs can challenge that interpretation in a specific enforcement action.”

Healthy Families Act Introduced – Legislation has been introduced that would guarantee paid sick leave to employees. The main sponsors of the legislation are Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). The bills have 30 Senate cosponsors and 138 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. Senator Sanders stated, “It is an international embarrassment that the United States of America remains the only major country on Earth not to guarantee paid sick days to workers.”

The Healthy Families Act would guarantee every employee of employers that have at least 15 employees with up to seven paid sick days per year that could be used to recover from their own or family member illnesses, obtain preventive care, or attend school meetings concerning the health conditions or disabilities of their children. Sick leave would be earned at the minimum of one hour for every 30 hours worked up to a minimum of 56 hours per year. Employers that provided sick leave that exceeded the minimum would not need to modify their policies.

The bills have been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Neil Reichenberg is the former executive director of the International Public Management Association for Human Resources. He is an attorney, a frequent writer and speaker on public policy and human resource issues, and an adjunct faculty member at George Mason University. For questions or additional information, contact Reichenberg at neilreichenberg@yahoo.com.