Press Release

By: AIF Staff

Washington, DC – Last week, AIF President Paul Ryan was named as the Co-Chair of the Commission on Artificial Intelligence and the Future of the American Workforce. The Commission, which is a joint effort undertaken by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Urban Institute, will spend the next year developing various policy recommendations and proposals to the challenges facing American workers with the increased adoption and utilization of Artificial Intelligence. 

In a virtual event featuring Ryan, his Commission Co-Chair Secretary Gina Raimondo, AEI President Robert Doar, and Urban Institute President Sarah Rosen Wartell, Ryan answered questions on several topics related to the Commission and Artificial Intelligence. 

Excerpts of Ryan’s responses, edited lightly for clarity, follow. Video of the Commission’s launch is accessible here.

  

Ryan on the Key Objectives of Commission on AI and the Future of American Workforce

“I’ve seen a lot of Commissions come and go. I’ve been on Commissions – ones that have been effective and meaningful, and ones that have fallen flat and collected dust, so I think there are three things we want to do. 

We want to provide policymakers with solutions focusing on interoperability and economic growth, and show people from both sides of the aisle, from different parts of the political spectrum, coming together around a consensus so they can attract policymakers’ support. 

We want to provide a forum. We want to provide a forum for a variety of views — from tech to labor, from left to right — to be represented on this Commission, to discuss complex components of the forthcoming revolution of AI, and to do it in a way that leads to consensus-driven ideas rather than delving into polarizing sound bites. 

We want to be leading by example, providing a forum, promoting the consensus ideas that come from that, and then showcasing the high-quality work and the research of AEI and the Urban Institute…. 

[With] the kind of data, the kind of scholarly rigor that AEI and Urban have, and the kind of people we’re bringing on to this commission, which really is a great cross-section, I believe we can show policymakers real evidence-based solutions so that they can consider real policy responses. 

Policy responses are going to occur. It doesn’t matter who’s running Congress, and we can show what consensus looks like and assist these policymakers by assembling this kind of evidence. I’ve seen very successful commissions, including those from outside of Congress, come to Congress and show policymakers a way forward. I think we can do just that.”

Ryan on Pope Leo’s recent Encyclical on AI: 

“It’s very important that this Pope picked his name the way he picked it, because the prior Pope Leo, Leo XIII, wrote an encyclical, Rerum Novarum, during the Industrial Revolution to help society navigate labor and capital at a time of enormous upheaval. 

This Pope, Leo XIV, wrote a fantastic encyclical. It is a timeless contribution. It’s called Magnifica Humanitas. 

Now, a lot of non-Catholics don’t even know what encyclicals are or what they mean, but this is worthwhile reading for everybody who cares about the issue [of Artificial Intelligence]. It’s worthwhile reading for every American Catholic, every conservative, and quite frankly, anybody who cares about human dignity. 

Popes don’t write technical jargon. It’s not a technical manual. He is reminding us that technology needs to serve the human person, not the other way around. He grounds the policy debate….  It is basically a clear, moral statement that grounds the policy debate in one core truth: Economic progress is meaningless if it breaks the dignity of the individual worker. 

So, Pope Leo XIV is bringing a sense of moral clarity, which is exactly what we need as we meet these policy challenges not just in America, but across the world.”

Ryan on upskilling and augmenting America’s Workforce with AI

“I spend most of my time talking with CEOs and business leaders and I’ll make one macro policy observation: Our economic stabilizers that we have from state, local and federal governments are 100 years old. 

They were written and built for a different time. So, what we’re going to do with this Commission is explore how do you change that approach so that it meets the moment? That’s the first point. 

The second point is: I get basically 2 reactions from CEOs and employers. They’re excited and they’re intimidated. Most employers want to augment their workforce and skate to where the puck is going to be and seize opportunities. 

What they’re worried about is that their competitor may use AI to cut labor costs and then outcompete them. So, they’re worried that this becomes a game where the first company who cuts labor costs wins, but they really don’t want to be first. That tension is really rising in this economy.  I think there are going to be good solutions that can help get employers away from that thinking, because they really want to go toward augmentation….

The third point I’ll make is, and I spend a lot of my time specifically in this, there’s going to be a skilled labor renaissance in America….  America is reindustrializing. There’s going to be a renaissance of skilled workers. And the question is: How does that Renaissance play out in this new AI-augmented world? 

There’s a slice of workers in the middle that are the most vulnerable. And so, I think there are a lot of good, private sector solutions to reskilling and upskilling that workforce, so they can seize those better jobs and have those new opportunities.”

To learn more about the Commission on Artificial Intelligence and the Future of the American Workforce, click here.  

By: AIF Staff

Washington, DC – This morning, former Speaker of the House and AIF President Paul Ryan was named as a Co-Chair of the Commission on AI and the Future of the American Workforce. Along with former Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, Ryan will help lead the year-long effort which is supported by the American Enterprise Institute and the Urban Institute. 

The Commission, which will include experts from government, academia, tech, and the private sector, aims to assess how artificial intelligence is reshaping jobs, skills, and earnings and to develop policy options to help workers, employers, and government adapt.

The work is directed by Brent Orrell, senior fellow at AEI, and Elisabeth Jacobs, executive director of WorkRise at the Urban Institute, and will organize its work around specific research tracks. It will examine how AI adoption affects specific occupations and wage levels, what the technology means for upskilling and reskilling workers, and what kinds of education and training may be valuable under uncertain conditions. It will also provide policy options for various scenarios. 

In announcing the Commission on AI and the Future of American Workforce, Ryan said:    

“Artificial intelligence will change how millions of Americans earn a living, and we must ensure AI catalyzes upward mobility and preserves the dignity of work. “Bringing AEI and the Urban Institute together signals that AI is a challenge for our entire country, not just one party. I want this Commission to offer practical solutions so AI can be utilized in a way that elevates, equips, and empowers the American workforce, and to provide policymakers with an evidence-based, forward-looking roadmap to foster robust economic growth.” 

Secretary Gina Raimondo, who will co-chair the initiative with Ryan said: 

“Artificial intelligence can widen the gap between who gets ahead and who gets left behind — or it can be the greatest engine of opportunity in a generation,” said Gina Raimondo, co-chair of the commission. “Which one we get depends on the choices we make now. That’s why this commission matters: to follow the evidence on what actually prepares workers for the shift ahead — the right training, the right transition infrastructure — and recommend the policies that match.”

To learn more about the Commission, click here. 

By: AIF Staff

Cambridge, MA – In late March, AIF President and former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan took part in a John F. Kennedy policy forum with Anthony Foxx, former US Transportation Secretary and current Director of Harvard’s Center for Public Leadership.

The event, entitled: Leaders and Public Service in an Unpredictable World, was hosted by Harvard University’s Kennedy School. Ryan, who is spending time at Harvard as a Spring 2026 Hauser Leader, and Secretary Foxx discussed the challenges facing the next generation of American leaders and extolled the virtues of government service.

While on campus, Ryan held a roundtable conversation with students working with Harvard’s Institute of Politics and did interviews with the Harvard Crimson, the Harvard International Review, and Harvard Magazine. 

Video of the JFK Forum is accessible here and excerpts of some of Ryan’s responses, edited for clarity, follow.

Developing policy expertise, scaling a meritocracy in Congress:

“I wanted to be an economic policy maker and the key committees for that are the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. In the House, it’s more of a meritocracy. We actually term-limit chairs as Republican —  and the Democrats should do that, but they just don’t – so every six years you have a turn-over of chairs and you basically have to make your case to a panel of 21 Members of Congress, a cross-section of your conference, as to why you should be the next chair. I was 13th in seniority on the Budget Committee, but I was able to make a case on merit….

My big takeaway from this and the lesson for young people who want to get into this field is: Develop good habits, work really hard, know your subject matter, let the game come to you and rise through a meritocracy. A lot of people today think you can “fake it till you make it,” but that’s not true…

The best advice I got came from Barney Frank—he told me to be a specialist. Focus deeply on one or two areas and become the most informed person in that space. For me, that was the budget. That focus helped me earn the opportunity to lead.”

Ryan’s definition of “conservatism”:
“Conservatism, properly understood, is what I call “full-spectrum conservatism,” and it’s rooted in classical liberalism. It’s about conserving the principles and institutions that allow society to flourish….

Those principles come from a long intellectual tradition—think Edmund Burke, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others. At the core are liberty, freedom, self-determination, pluralism, and equality of opportunity—not equality of outcome. It’s grounded in natural law and natural rights—the idea that our rights are inherent and pre-government, and that government’s role is to protect those rights so people can pursue happiness in their own way, as long as they don’t infringe on others.

I come from the Reagan-era of classical liberal conservatism. I do think the current dominant strain in the Republican Party is different— it’s more nationalist and populist—and in my view, it departs from some of these core principles, particularly around markets and the idea of America as a nation defined by ideals….

What concerns me most is that both parties are drifting toward moral relativism—where the ends justify the means, and the other side is treated as the enemy. That’s a dangerous place for the country.”

Advancements in evidence-based policymaking can save the social contract:

“I really believe that we are getting, through the study of economics, better at learning about how to fight poverty more effectively and that we can take all the dollars we spend on the thousand-plus [poverty-fighting] programs and do it in a way where we fund programs based on outcomes and measurements, which is what we call evidence-based policymaking.

I wrote a law with Senator Patty Murray, a friend of mine who’s a progressive Democrat from Washington state, called the Evidence Act and the whole point of this law is that we pivot our policymaking not toward ideological, partisan fights, but to what works.

And so, I do think there is a consensus now. It took a while to get there between Republicans and Democrats… that our social contract is good and we want it and we define that social contract as health and retirement security for all Americans a safety net for the poor.”

Conservatives concerns with institutional, ideological “wokeism”
“Conservatives broadly see what’s happening with “wokeism” as a problem. If you break that down, it often comes to DEI and ESG. Diversity and inclusion are important—those are good aspirations. It’s the “equity” component that becomes ideological….

What conservatives see is important principles—like ending racism and increasing inclusion—being used in service of a broader ideological agenda. It becomes a situation where if you want to support those goals, you’re told you must also adopt a specific ideological framework. That’s what creates friction….

On the environmental side, the conservative approach is technology. Let’s pursue innovation—fusion, nuclear, better energy solutions. I serve on the board of a nuclear energy company working on nuclear waste recycling. We should double down on innovation rather than undermine our economy or energy independence.

On the social side, I think there are better ways to fight poverty than large government programs. We’ve learned a lot through economics about what works. I worked on the Evidence Act with Patty Murray, which is about funding outcomes—evidence-based policymaking.

There’s actually a growing bipartisan consensus that the social contract—health and retirement security and a safety net—is important. The question is how to design it.”

Reducing the national debt through prospective reforms to entitlements:

“The way to do it is to reform our entitlement programs. These are important programs—Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid — but they were designed in the 20th century and are now unsustainable in the 21^st century. They make up about 75% of the budget and are the primary drivers of the debt.

We’ve learned a lot since these programs were created. We should apply those lessons—especially from markets and innovation—to reform them. I believe you can phase in reforms prospectively, protecting people in or near retirement while updating the system for younger generations.

The problem is we don’t have the political will to do that. So, the most realistic path is probably a statutory commission—something that forces Congress to act, with fast-track authority. At some point, the bond markets may force action. That may be what ultimately drives reform.”

Congress ceding authority to Executive Branch:

“As Speaker, I actually sued both the Obama and Trump administrations when I believed the executive branch was encroaching on legislative powers. That’s part of Congress’s duty.

This rarely happens under unified government. When one party controls both Congress and the presidency, there’s a reluctance to challenge the executive. But that’s when encroachment happens fastest, because the majority doesn’t want to undermine the president of their own party.

I do think the executive branch has been encroaching, particularly on funding authority— on the power of the purse, which is a core Article I power. Congress could do much more to defend its ground….

People say the branches are co-equal, but in the Constitution, the legislative branch is actually the most powerful. Article I is the most robust section. It’s the branch closest to the people. The founders expected each branch to jealously guard its powers, creating healthy tension. That tension breaks down under one-party rule.”