California Bill Would Force Government to Reveal AI Use to Workers
A bill sitting on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk would require every California government agency — state, county, and city — to tell union leaders when it plans to use generative AI.
Assembly Bill 2656 passed the Legislature this year. Newsom hasn’t signed it yet.
Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, D-Irvine, wrote it in response to growing use of AI in government operations.
“This measure ensures that public employees are not left in the dark as artificial intelligence becomes more integrated into government operations,” Petrie-Norris wrote. Workers deserve “clear, advance notice” when AI shows up and how it might change their duties, evaluations, or decisions.
The worry isn’t academic. A June 2025 study from MissionSquare Research Institute found more than half of government workers nationwide are at least somewhat concerned about AI at work. Twenty percent are very or extremely concerned about either needing serious retraining or being replaced outright.
Opponents say current law already handles this — existing notification requirements kick in when new technology affects public employees, so AB 2656 isn’t needed.
The Breakdown
- AB 2656 would require state and local government agencies to notify union leaders when considering using generative AI technology.
- The bill applies to cities, counties, and state agencies across California.
- It passed the Legislature but has not been signed into law by Gov. Newsom.
- Opponents argue existing law already covers technology-change notifications.
What This Means for You
If Newsom signs this, city and county agencies would have to disclose AI use to public-employee unions. The bill creates a specific notification requirement for generative AI. Opponents claim existing law already covers technology-change notifications, though the Legislature passed this new measure.
What to Watch
Notice the bill only requires telling union leaders, not the public. A city could deploy AI to screen permit applications, flag code violations, or evaluate employee performance — and residents wouldn’t necessarily know unless the union chose to make noise about it.
Also: the opposition’s claim that “current law already covers this” is doing work. If that were obviously true, why did the Legislature pass a new bill? Either the existing requirement isn’t as airtight as opponents say, or agencies aren’t following it. Either way, someone thought a specific AI-disclosure rule was necessary.
The real question is what happens after notification. The bill mandates disclosure, not approval. An agency could tell the union “we’re using AI,” then do it anyway. Whether that notice actually gives workers leverage to push back, or just checks a box before the rollout happens regardless, depends on what the union can do with the information — and AB 2656 doesn’t answer that.
