This Act establishes federal grants to fund programs that use immersive technologies like VR and AR to train American workers for in-demand careers.
Lisa Blunt Rochester
Senator
DE
The Immersive Technology for the American Workforce Act of 2025 establishes a federal grant program managed by the Secretary of Labor to fund career pathway programs utilizing immersive technologies like virtual and augmented reality. These grants aim to equip workers with in-demand job skills, prioritizing partnerships with employers and serving individuals facing employment barriers. The legislation authorizes $50 million annually for ten years to support the creation and implementation of these innovative training services.
The “Immersive Technology for the American Workforce Act of 2025” is essentially a big federal bet on virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) as the next big thing in job training. It authorizes the Department of Labor to set up a competitive grant program with $50 million authorized annually for ten years (FY 2026–2035) to fund programs using this tech to teach job skills.
This isn't just about giving students cool headsets; it’s about creating clear career pathways that lead directly to financially self-sufficient jobs. The bill defines “immersive technology” as anything that blends the real world with digital content—think using an AR headset to practice complex machinery repair or using VR to simulate a factory floor. Grant recipients, which must be industry partnerships that include colleges or technical schools, must use the funds to either create these tech-enabled pathways or train their instructors on how to use the tech effectively.
Crucially, the legislation requires these programs to be accessible, following the rules of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and existing workforce laws. This means the training must be available to people facing employment barriers, ensuring that the tech isn’t just for those already plugged in. For someone trying to switch careers or a veteran looking to translate military skills, this could mean access to highly specialized, hands-on training without needing to travel long distances or risk expensive equipment.
Since this is a competitive grant program, the Secretary of Labor gets to play gatekeeper, and the bill spells out the priority list. Top priority goes to applicants who partner with employers who have already committed to hiring the people who complete the program. This is the bill’s way of keeping the training relevant and avoiding the creation of “skills for skills’ sake” programs. If you’re a community college, partnering with a local manufacturer who needs certified welders and is willing to hire your VR-trained graduates is your golden ticket.
The Secretary will also prioritize programs that align with state workforce plans, target specific in-demand industries, or aim to retrain workers from industries seeing job losses. They also give a nod to serving rural communities—defined as areas outside of places with 50,000 or more people—recognizing that high-tech training often bypasses these areas. This focus on employer commitments and specific industry needs is designed to ensure the $500 million authorized over the next decade actually translates into jobs.
Grants can run for up to five years, but recipients must report their performance data back to the Secretary of Labor every year after the second year. This data must detail how well the programs are hitting performance targets, broken down by participant type. The Secretary then has to compile this into a summary report for Congress every two years.
This reporting requirement is key. It means that the Department of Labor has to show their work—are these expensive, high-tech training programs actually working better than traditional methods? For taxpayers, this is the accountability check. The bill also sets aside 1% to 5% of the funds for independent evaluation and technical assistance, ensuring that the government is studying what works and sharing those “best practices” publicly after the third year. This focus on data and evaluation suggests a serious attempt to make sure these grants are an investment, not just a giveaway.