American Franchise Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/3525
Last Updated: March 29, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

ID: M001198

Follow the money

The bill

American Franchise Act

S. 3525, 119th Congress — read as touching Restaurants & Food Service.

The sponsor

Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$154,700 raised

24 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 624-626 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.

March 18, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the real disease beneath.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The American Franchise Act (AFA) claims to "preserve the franchise business model." How noble. In reality, it's a desperate attempt to shield franchisors from accountability for their treatment of employees. The bill's sponsors want to redefine what constitutes a "joint employer," effectively absolving franchisors of responsibility for labor law violations committed by their franchisees.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The AFA amends the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to create a new definition of "direct and immediate control" over essential terms and conditions of employment. This Orwellian doublespeak is designed to confuse and obscure the fact that franchisors will be allowed to exert significant control over franchisees' operations without being held accountable for labor law violations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved in this charade:

* Franchisors, who want to maintain their grip on franchisees while avoiding liability for labor law infractions. * Lobbyists, who have undoubtedly greased the wheels of Congress with generous campaign contributions and "educational" seminars. * Politicians, who will tout this bill as a victory for small business owners (read: franchisees) while secretly serving the interests of their corporate donors.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a recipe for disaster:

* Franchisees will continue to be exploited by franchisors, who will use their newfound freedom from liability to squeeze every last penny from their employees. * Workers will suffer as franchisors and franchisees collude to suppress wages, benefits, and working conditions. * The NLRA will be gutted, undermining the already-fragile protections afforded to workers under federal labor law.

In conclusion, the American Franchise Act is a cynical attempt to further entrench corporate power at the expense of workers' rights. It's a legislative disease that requires a strong dose of skepticism and ridicule. As I always say, "Everyone lies," and this bill is no exception.

Related Topics

Labor & Employment Policy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$154,700
19 donors
PACs
$9,500
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$145,200
1
THE KROGER CO. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
2 transactions
$5,500
2
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS
1 transaction
$2,500
3
THE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE
1 transaction
$1,500

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
BRACH, JEREMIAH
4 transactions
$26,400
2
ILLIG, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$13,200
3
MADAY, GREG
1 transaction
$13,200
4
DOWNING, BARRY L.
2 transactions
$13,200
5
ILLIG, BONNE
1 transaction
$6,600
6
ILLIG, AMY
1 transaction
$6,600
7
MADAY, LIZ
1 transaction
$6,600
8
MAXWELL, KORB II
1 transaction
$6,600
9
ILLIG, CLIFFORD
1 transaction
$6,600
10
PRENGER, JEANETTE
1 transaction
$6,600
11
O'BRATE, CECIL L.
1 transaction
$6,600
12
SPARKS, LANCE
1 transaction
$6,600
13
LINDSEY, RYAN
1 transaction
$6,600
14
LEFKOWITZ, JOEL
1 transaction
$6,600
15
SMILOWITZ, DOV
1 transaction
$6,600
16
MCKEE, JACK C.
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

ID: K000383

Top Contributors

10

1
2120 SEA ISLAND LLC
OrganizationRIVER FOREST, IL
$3,300
Oct 26, 2023
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
May 22, 2024
3
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,000
Mar 29, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,300
May 22, 2024
5
SMITH, BRAD
MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Feb 13, 2024
6
SMITH, BRAD
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Feb 20, 2024
7
DOWNEY, NANCY A.
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Sep 4, 2024
8
DOWNEY, NANCY A.
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Aug 31, 2024
9
OTTEN, LESLIE B.
AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY • OWNER
IndividualBETHEL, ME
$5,000
Oct 4, 2024
10
BEKENSTEIN, ANITA
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualWAYLAND, MA
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024

Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

ID: L000575

Top Contributors

10

1
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Oct 29, 2024
2
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
OrganizationRICHMOND, VA
$1,000
Aug 4, 2023
3
SAMPLES, RYAN
SAMPLES GROUP • MANAGEMENT
IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK
$6,600
Aug 30, 2023
4
KAY, ALISON
KIDS CAPITAL • HEDGE FUND MANAGER
IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA
$6,600
Jun 20, 2023
5
KANADY, CHRISTIAN
ECHO INVESTMENT CAPITAL, LLC • CEO
IndividualNICHOLS HILLS, OK
$6,600
Jun 10, 2024
6
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
RETIRED
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Jul 31, 2024
7
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Jul 31, 2024
8
ROWAN, CAROLYN
CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION • OWNER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Sep 30, 2024
9
ROWAN, MARC J.
APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT • CEO
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Sep 30, 2024
10
ARMSTRONG, SINCLAIR WALKER JR.
ARMSTRONG BANK • CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
IndividualVIAN, OK
$6,600
Aug 30, 2023

Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

ID: S001232

Top Contributors

10

1
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
2
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
3
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
4
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
5
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
6
SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,609
Jun 21, 2024
7
SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,609
Jun 21, 2024
8
SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,609
Jun 21, 2024
9
REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION-POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,000
Jun 25, 2024
10
REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION-POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,000
Jun 25, 2024

Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]

ID: C001035

Top Contributors

10

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
PACPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 28, 2023
2
SILBEY, ALEXANDER
ATS COMMUNICATIONS, INC, • CONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$6,600
Jul 23, 2024
3
ARNOLD, LAURA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
Aug 10, 2024
4
READ, KURT
RSF PARTNERS • PARTNER
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
5
COATES, CHRIS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualIRVING, TX
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
6
READ, KURT
RSF PARTNERS • PARTNER
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
7
CROTTY, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
8
COATES, CHRIS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualIRVING, TX
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
9
CROTTY, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
10
YOUNGMAN, ANDREW
CITIZENS DISABILITY LLC • CEO
IndividualWEST NEWTON, MA
$3,300
Nov 20, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 45 nodes and 36 connections (38 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $209,260

Top Donors - Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

3 PACs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 1 harmed.

  • Section 3 clarifies joint employment standards for franchisors, reducing liability risk for franchise business models. This benefits industries reliant on franchising, including restaurants and food service (e.g., McDonald's, Yum Brands, Starbucks).

  • −Labor Unionsconfidence 0.80

    By narrowing the definition of joint employment under the NLRA and FLSA, the bill reduces franchisor liability for franchisee labor practices, weakening union organizing power and collective bargaining leverage in franchised sectors.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Very Strong
Vector: 76%
Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The American Franchise Act directly implements Project 2025's joint employer policy by codifying a 'direct and immediate control' standard for franchisors under the NLRA, aligning with the call to return to long-standing joint employer definitions and protect the franchise business model."

Key themes:joint employer definitiondirect and immediate controlfranchise business modelprotect small businessesNLRB/DOL standards

— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Very Strong
Vector: 74%
Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The American Franchise Act directly implements Project 2025's policy objective to codify a narrow definition of joint employer based on direct and immediate control, specifically to protect the franchise business model from expansive NLRB and DOL rules that threaten small business entrepreneurship."

Key themes:joint employer definitiondirect and immediate controlfranchise business modelNLRB/DOL rollbacksmall business protection

— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules. — 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Strong
Vector: 63%
Pages: 636-638AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The American Franchise Act aligns with Project 2025's goal of reforming labor laws to limit union influence and increase employer flexibility, particularly by narrowing the joint employer standard under the NLRA to reduce franchisor liability—a move consistent with weakening collective bargaining power and promoting business autonomy."

Key themes:NLRA reformjoint employer standardlabor law flexibilityreducing union influencefranchise business model

— 603 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies decision-making is required under the law, basing this theory on an old NLRB case, Joy Silk, even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected mandatory card-check recognition. l Discard “card check.” Congress should discard “card check” as the basis of union recognition and mandate the secret ballot exclusively. Contract Bar Rule. Although current labor law allows a union to establish itself at a workplace at more or less any time, the calendar for any attempt to decertify a union is considerably more constrained. If a union is recognized as a collective bargaining agent, then employees may not decertify it or substitute another union for it for at least one year under federal law (the “certification bar”). Similarly, when a union reaches a collective bargaining agreement with an employer, it is immune from a decertification election for up to three years (the “contract bar”). A typical consequence of these rules is that employees must often wait four years before they are allowed a chance at decertification. Employees then have only a 45-day window to file a decertification petition; if the employer and union sign a successor contract, then the contract bar comes into play once again—meaning employees with an interest in decertification must wait another three years. l Eliminate the contract bar rule. NLRB should eliminate the contract bar rule so that employees with an interest in decertification have a reasonable chance to achieve their goal. Tailoring National Employment Rules. National employment laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)21 and the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act22 set out one-size-fits-all “floors” regulating the employment rela- tionship. These substantive worker protections often do not mesh well with the procedural worker protections offered through the NLRA’s collective bargaining process. Unions could play a powerful role in tailoring national employment rules to the needs of a particular workplace if, in unionized workplaces, national rules were treated as negotiable defaults rather than non-negotiable floors. l Congress should amend the NLRA to authorize collective bargaining to treat national employment laws and regulations as negotiable defaults. For example, this reform would allow a union to bless a relaxed overtime trigger (e.g., 45 hours a week, or 80 hours over two weeks) in exchange for firm employer commitments on predictable scheduling. Alternative Policy. While some conservatives (including the author of this chap- ter) believe that it would be a mistake to antagonize unions’ core interests, others — 604 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise argue that the next Administration should end Project Labor Agreement require- ments and repeal the Davis–Bacon Act. And while some conservatives have chosen not to address massive federal subsidies for unionized labor, others believe that current laws and regulations that pick winners and losers to the detriment of the majority of construction workers and to all taxpayers should not be ignored. Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are short-term collective bargaining agreements that apply to construction projects. There are a few reasons that con- struction projects may benefit from a PLA, and there are many reasons that even when actively encouraged to do so public construction projects have declined to use PLAs. Among the consequences: The majority of construction firms and construction workers are not unionized and their temporary forced unionization results in large-scale wage theft; construction companies are significantly less likely to bid on projects with PLAs; and PLAs consistently drive up construction costs by 10 percent to 30 percent. The Davis–Bacon Act23 requires federally financed construction projects to pay “prevailing wages.” In theory, these wages should reflect going market rates for construction labor in the relevant area. However, both the Government Account- ability Office and the Department of Labor’s Inspector General have repeatedly criticized the Labor Department for using self-selected, statistically unrepresenta- tive samples to calculate the prevailing-wage rates that drive up the cost of federal construction by about 10 percent. The Davis–Bacon Act redistributes wealth from hardworking Americans to those that benefit from government-funded construc- tion projects. Repealing the Davis–Bacon Act would increase worker freedom and end a longstanding effective tax on American families. l End PLA requirements. Agencies should end all mandatory Project Labor Agreement requirements and base federal procurement decisions on the contractors that can deliver the best product at the lowest cost. l Repeal Davis–Bacon. Congress should enact the Davis–Bacon Repeal Act and allow markets to determine market wages. THE STATES Worker-led Benefits Experimentation. Workers depend on unemployment benefits to navigate inevitable market frictions and seek new employment oppor- tunities. But existing unemployment insurance (UI) is bureaucratic, ineffective, and unaccountable. The outdated system’s myriad failures during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for innovations that respond to recipients’ needs. The most promising avenue for innovation is to involve workers and private-sec- tor organizations more directly, freed from unnecessary bureaucratic strictures. Americans take for granted that unemployment benefits must be administered by

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills