Workers bound by non-compete contracts could take new jobs within a month of a bill becoming law, under bipartisan legislation now before the House.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, and Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, wrote the Workers’ Right To Compete Act. Fox News Digital obtained the bill text exclusively.
The proposal covers employees who make less than $100,000 a year. Companies could no longer require those workers to sign non-competes.
Agreements already in force would lose effect 30 days after the bill passes, which would let previously restricted employees pursue other work.
Luna centered her case on economic freedom.
“Independent contractors and hardworking Americans deserve the freedom to continue advancing their careers and earn the money they deserve without unnecessary legal red tape standing in their way,” Luna told Fox News Digital in a statement.
“This legislation protects that freedom and puts Americans in charge of their opportunities and earning potential,” Luna concluded.
Khanna, speaking with Fox News Digital in an interview, said he expects support from both parties. He claimed Vice President JD Vance has previously called non-compete agreements unenforceable.
“It’s something that, after this election, may actually be able to bring the country together. I mean, what other issue do you have JD Vance, Rep. Luna, Ro Khanna all in alignment on?” he asked.
Both lawmakers say the contracts block Americans from pursuing opportunities and hold back economic growth.
To make the case that the policy works in practice, Khanna cited KKR & Co.
The private equity firm prohibited the companies it acquired from enforcing similar non-competes against employees who earn under $100,000 a year.
“They found that it actually improved the economic performance of the companies. It had no negative impact by not enforcing those non-competes,” Khanna said.
Pete Stavros, KKR’s co-head of global private equity, told Bloomberg that economists say non-competes suppress wages.
A 2021 article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis points the same direction.
Its authors wrote that “When Oregon ended the enforcement of non-competes for hourly paid workers, wages for those workers rose by 2–3%.”
Khanna said he would prefer to set the income threshold above $100,000. He settled on that figure, he said, because he wanted to begin with a version that could clear Congress.
He also pointed to his home state. California broadly bans non-competes, and Khanna said that policy helped fuel its tech sector.
By his account, Anthropic founder Dario Amodei could not have launched his company if his former employer, OpenAI, had held him to a non-compete clause.
“Something I’ve heard from the day I’ve been in Congress, one of California’s successes in innovation has been that we ban the enforcement of non-competes. So you can have someone leave a technology company and go to another technology company that allows for new startups, new innovation, and more competition,” he told Fox News Digital.
“So many people from Google left to OpenAI,” Khanna continued. “So many from OpenAI left to Anthropic. People leave from NVIDIA all the time to go to Anthropic to start AI companies, to start technology companies. Now, my view is these tech companies already have too much power. We need more competition, not less competition.”
“But imagine if they were non-compete, you basically would have one monopolist in doing search, in doing AI, in building chips. I’m glad that at least you have AMD and NVIDIA competing,” Khanna said.
His final appeal was aimed at colleagues across the political divide.
“It’s bipartisan. It’s something that can bring the political spectrum together. It’s pro-innovation. It’s pro-growth. It’s pro wages. It is something that has worked in California and Silicon Valley,” he told Fox News Digital. “Anyone who knows the Silicon Valley ecosystem will say the non-enforcement of non-compete is one of the reasons for the Valley’s success.”
Washington has tried a ban before. The Federal Trade Commission voted in 2024 on a rule to prohibit non-competes, but the agency abandoned it after a federal district court struck it down.
