Summary#
The CARE Act of 2026 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; it would not create a separate law or agency. It would tighten federal child-labor rules for agriculture, raise penalties, require reporting of serious harm to child farmworkers, and bar children under 18 from pesticide-handler tasks. Its stated goal is to improve children’s health and safety at work. The bill is not law; it has been referred to a Senate committee.
- Most child-labor exemptions for farm work would be removed. The exception would allow a person under 18 to work in agriculture outside school hours for a parent or parental substitute on a farm that person owns.
- A separate exception would let children under 16 work for a parent or parental substitute in some non-farm jobs, but not in manufacturing, mining, or jobs the Labor Secretary finds especially hazardous or harmful.
- The bill would repeal an existing waiver provision for hand-harvest laborers. It would also define employment of children under 14, and some work by 14- and 15-year-olds, as “oppressive child labor”; for 16- and 17-year-olds, that definition covers jobs declared particularly hazardous or harmful.
- Employers would have to report a serious work-related injury, a discovered serious illness, or a work-related death of an agricultural worker under 18 within five days. The Labor Secretary would have to analyze injury data and publish an annual report to Congress.
- The Labor Secretary must revise federal rules within 30 days to bar anyone under 18 from pesticide-handler tasks. The bill would also increase civil penalties and create criminal penalties for repeated or willful violations that cause a child’s death, serious injury, or serious illness.
What it means for you#
- Child farmworkers and their families: The bill would generally subject agricultural work by children to the federal child-labor rules that apply outside the listed parental exceptions. On a parent-owned farm, the child-labor limits in the Act would not apply to a child working for the owner outside school hours.
- Agricultural employers: Employers would face higher penalties for child-labor violations and would have to report specified serious harm to workers under 18 within five days. The Secretary may impose a $500–$7,000 penalty for each failure to report.
- Children under 18: They could not be employed to perform the pesticide-handler tasks described in the federal regulation named in the bill.
- The public: The Labor Secretary would have to publish annual reports on child farmworker injuries, illnesses, deaths, and related safety hazards. The bill does not directly change wages, taxes, or benefits.
Money#
No publicly available information on estimated public costs is included in the supplied material.
- The bill requires federal data analysis, annual reports, and regulatory work, but gives no staffing or cost estimate.
- Employers could face civil penalties of $500–$15,000 per affected employee for a child-labor violation. For a violation causing a worker under 18 to suffer serious injury, serious illness, or death, the penalty would be $15,000–$60,115; it may be doubled for a repeated or willful violation.
- Repeated or willful violations causing a child’s death, serious injury, or serious illness could also bring imprisonment of up to five years, a criminal fine, or both. No estimate of likely penalties, fines, or employer compliance costs is provided.
What is unclear#
- The current Fair Labor Standards Act text was not supplied, so the full effect of the changes—and the details of the repealed hand-harvest waiver—could not be checked against current law.
- The bill does not explain how the Labor Secretary would determine whether work by 14- or 15-year-olds is compatible with schooling and health, or how hazardous jobs would be identified.
- It refers to a definition of “serious injury” in the existing Act, but that definition is not included in the supplied text. The bill defines “serious illness” as an abnormal condition or disorder caused by a work-environment event or exposure, and presumes an illness resulting from an event or exposure on the employer’s premises is work-related.
- The Secretary may issue implementation rules within six months, while a separate provision requires a pesticide-handler rule within 30 days. The bill does not clearly explain how the general effective-date rule would work if the Secretary does not issue the optional rules.
- The bill does not specify how reports containing a child’s name and address would be protected or made available.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to reduce children’s exposure to hazardous farm work by limiting exemptions that allow younger children to work in agriculture.
- Setting minimum and maximum penalties could make the consequences of violations clearer than a maximum-only penalty.
- Required employer reports and annual public data could give Congress and the public better information about serious harm to child farmworkers.
- A specific ban on pesticide-handler tasks for children under 18 would address a named workplace hazard.
Case against#
- The parent-owned-farm exception would still let children under 18 work outside school hours without the Act’s child-labor limits, so protections would differ by who employs the child and owns the farm.
- The bill requires new reporting and federal work but gives no cost, staffing, or compliance estimates.
- The bill leaves key implementation details to the Labor Secretary and does not set out a complete process for defining or investigating reportable incidents.
- Reports must include identifying information about the child and employer, but the bill does not explain how that information would be protected.