# AI giants' $500 million bet to fix the jobs they are destroying > Introduction: a check against a wave - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Profile - Published: 2026-07-04 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/le-pari-a-500-millions-des-geants-de-lia-pour-reparer-les-emplois-quils-detruisent ## Introduction: a check against a wave ### The **builders' paradox** On **June 25, 2026**, an unusual coalition appeared before the cameras in Washington. On one side, **Gina Raimondo**, former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, and **Eric Holcomb**, former Republican governor of Indiana. On the other, checks from **Amazon**, **Anthropic**, **Microsoft**, and the **OpenAI Foundation** — the same companies that, for **eighteen months**, have cited artificial intelligence as the justification behind tens of thousands of job cuts in the United States (Axios). The name of the financial vehicle is **RAISE US**, a bipartisan nonprofit that says it has already raised more than **$500 million** toward a total goal of **one billion dollars**. The money is meant to retrain American workers displaced by automation, at a time when **June 2026 layoff data** show that AI remains, for the **fourth consecutive month**, the reason most frequently cited by employers to justify cuts (AI Driven Talent). ### A **retraining effort** that comes after the fall This **testimony** is not that of a laid-off worker — it would be dishonest to invent a voice that does not exist. It is instead the testimony of a columnist observing, with documents in hand, how the architects of technological disruption are belatedly trying to cushion its social shock. The **central question** remains simple: **can you fund the healing** with the money of those who caused the wound without it becoming a public relations exercise? According to the **New York Times**, **OpenAI**, **Anthropic**, **Amazon**, and **Microsoft** formally joined Raimondo's effort right at its launch, a **rare alignment** among tech rivals who are otherwise locked in a fierce race to dominate the generative artificial intelligence market (New York Times). *I cannot help seeing the head-on contradiction here: the same companies that tout their **AI-driven productivity gains** on investor calls are the ones funding, weeks later, a fund to repair the **human damage** of that very productivity. It is not necessarily bad faith — but it sure looks like an admission.* ## Section 1: what June's layoff numbers reveal ### A **record that will not budge** The **June 2026 data** confirm a trend that has been in place for several months: artificial intelligence remains the **most frequently cited cause** by American companies for workforce reductions, a pattern documented for a fourth straight month (AI Driven Talent). This finding comes alongside internal **Amazon** documents, revealed the same week, that reportedly sketch out a path allowing the company to avoid up to **600,000 future hires** through automation. That figure, if confirmed over time, would by itself illustrate the scale of the structural problem RAISE US is trying to address: this is no longer just about scattered job losses, but about a planned slowdown in human hiring growth in certain logistics and administrative segments. ### The contrast with tech industry profits While job cuts pile up, the companies behind these technologies keep posting **robust growth** in their generative AI revenues. This contrast fuels the central criticism leveled at the RAISE US initiative: some observers believe the **promised half-billion** remains modest compared to the scale of the economic transformations under way, a reservation voiced even within the coalition's own ranks, where **Eric Holcomb** has publicly acknowledged that the target might not be enough at the necessary scale (Politico). This tension between the scale of the problem and the **size of the financial response** is, at this stage, the strongest critical angle against the initiative — far more than the easier but less proven accusation of a mere corporate image exercise. *Half a billion dollars, spread across **several states** over several years, can look enormous in a press release. But measured against the number of workers potentially affected nationwide, it is a **drop in the bucket**. I think the coalition knows this very well — and that may be exactly why it insists so much on the **word** "pilot."* ## Section 2: RAISE US's structure, a federalist bet ### Bypassing Washington, betting on the states RAISE US's strategy rests on a **decisive political choice**: rather than waiting for action from the U.S. Congress, the organization chooses to work directly with state governors. State capitals control **community colleges**, professional certification systems, and **tax incentives** for businesses — the concrete levers that determine whether an employer chooses to retrain a worker or lay them off (TheOutpost.ai). **Four states** were chosen as the first testing grounds: **Arkansas**, **Connecticut**, **Maryland**, and **Utah**, a deliberately bipartisan mix of Democratic and Republican administrations. ### Pilots already under way The plan has not stayed on paper. In **Arkansas**, RAISE US is supporting an AI-powered career navigation platform called **Arkansas LAUNCH**. In Maryland, the initiative is expanding a **service year** program for young graduates into the healthcare and education sectors, while also funding an accelerator for displaced workers looking to start their own businesses (TheOutpost.ai). **Connecticut** and **Utah** round out the first wave of state partnerships, with approaches still being defined according to organization officials. *This choice to go through the states rather than Congress strikes me as shrewd rather than cynical. In a **Washington paralyzed** by partisanship, a coalition betting on real governors with real levers has a better shot at producing a **measurable result** than a federal law that will never exist.* ## Section 3: the faces behind the coalition ### A bipartisan team at the helm The choice of **Gina Raimondo** as CEO is no accident. As former **Secretary of Commerce** under the Biden administration, she oversaw part of American industrial and technology policy during her tenure, including early federal discussions on artificial intelligence regulation. Her partner, **Eric Holcomb**, former Republican governor of Indiana, brings legitimacy with the conservative administrations RAISE US is trying to recruit (Politico). This **political duality** is not cosmetic: it directly shapes the organization's ability to convince governors from both parties to mobilize their own administrative levers without the initiative being seen as a partisan operation. ### A corporate circle that goes beyond tech Beyond the four tech giants anchoring the initiative, the coalition includes more than **two dozen companies** and philanthropic foundations, among them **IBM**, **Cisco**, **General Motors**, **Mastercard**, **Bank of America**, **Eli Lilly**, and the **Rockefeller Foundation** (Axios). This **sectoral diversity** suggests that the disruption tied to AI extends well beyond the tech sector to touch logistics, healthcare, finance, and manufacturing. **Bank of America** notably acts as lead sponsor of an advanced manufacturing apprenticeship initiative built into RAISE US's overall program, a detail that shows the organization's intent to root its interventions in concrete industries rather than abstract principles. *Seeing General Motors and Eli Lilly alongside Anthropic and OpenAI reminds me that AI panic is no longer a **purely technological phenomenon** — it cuts across **every sector of the American economy**. In my view, that should force a **much broader public debate** than the one currently taking place, often confined to **Silicon Valley engineers**.* ## Section 4: the concrete tools for retraining ### Wage insurance, an idea borrowed from the social safety net Among the **tools** RAISE US wants to test is a form of **wage insurance**, aimed at workers forced to accept a lower-paying job rather than leaving the labor market altogether. The organization also wants to experiment with a form of **reduced-hours compensation** to keep employees on staff during a transition rather than laying them off immediately (TheOutpost.ai). These mechanisms draw on **schemes already tested** in some European countries, but applying them at the American scale, in a much less regulated labor market, remains an experiment in its own right whose results are not guaranteed. ### Measuring success differently One of RAISE US's **most significant commitments** concerns its evaluation method. The organization says it wants to measure success not by the number of program enrollments or hours of training delivered — a metric that has historically let many retraining programs claim a **largely illusory impact** — but by whether workers **actually land a job** and keep it (Tech Times). This **methodological precision** directly answers a long-standing criticism of federal workforce retraining programs, whose real effectiveness has often been judged insufficient against the scale of the economic transitions they claimed to support. *If RAISE US truly keeps its promise to measure outcomes rather than intentions, that alone would be a **notable improvement** over decades of government programs that were content to count training certificates never turned into **real jobs**. But a promise and its execution are two different things, and the history of workforce policy is full of **good intentions abandoned along the way**.* ## Section 5: the evidence fueling skepticism ### A study that cools the illusions A report cited in coverage of the initiative analyzed more than **23 million federal records** under the U.S. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Its conclusion is blunt: **traditional job retraining** rarely manages to place workers back into jobs less exposed to automation, with one notable exception — **apprenticeship programs run directly by employers** (AI Driven Talent). This data directly explains why RAISE US insists so heavily on incentives aimed at employers rather than on generic training disconnected from the real labor market. The organization appears to have built its strategy as a direct response to this documented failure of previous approaches. ### The silence on workers' rights A critical analysis published by **The Register** notes that RAISE US's initial announcement places heavy emphasis on incentives offered to employers, while remaining largely silent on any explicit mention of workers' own rights (The Register). The focus is on **wage insurance** and **career navigation** rather than on strengthened legal protections against automation-driven layoffs. This silence is not necessarily a malicious strategic omission, but it illustrates a structural tension: a coalition partly funded by the companies responsible for the layoffs has natural limits on how far it is willing to fund protections against its own practices. *This is exactly the kind of detail that should fuel a more rigorous public debate. You cannot ask the same **companies doing the laying off** to fund **robust legal protections** against their own layoffs — that would be asking them to sign away their own power. It will take an **outside actor**, probably a political one, to fill that gap.* ## Section 6: the policy lab, a piece apart ### Funded without corporate money RAISE US includes a separate component called the **Policy Lab**, tasked with developing **recommendations** on workforce strategy in the face of AI. Notably, this lab is **funded exclusively** by philanthropic organizations, not by the initiative's corporate partners (Tech Times). This separation is meant to preserve a form of analytical independence from the companies that otherwise fund the organization's operational programs. Among the identified philanthropic funders are the **Rockefeller Foundation**, **Arnold Ventures**, **Emerson Collective**, and the **Stephen A. Schwarzman Foundation**, a group of donors already active in American public policy tied to jobs and education. ### Congress's role on the sidelines The very existence of this policy lab underscores, by omission, the **absence of substantial federal legislative action** on the disruption caused by AI. By betting on a parallel philanthropic structure rather than direct pressure on Congress, RAISE US implicitly acknowledges that the window for federal political action remains, for now, closed. This reality reinforces the argument that **private initiative**, despite its obvious limits of democratic legitimacy, is filling a void that elected institutions have not addressed. *Watching **private foundations** fill a federal legislative void offers no long-term reassurance. This is not how a democracy should manage an economic transformation of this scale — but for lack of anything better, I would rather have a policy lab funded by **philanthropists** than no structured thinking at all.* ## Section 7: the response from markets and rivals ### An acknowledged competitive pressure A statement from one of the coalition's leaders sums up the spirit of the initiative well: it is, in the reported words, the **first time direct competitors in the tech industry have set aside their rivalry** to collectively commit, in the name of the **national interest**, to funding a transition they themselves triggered (TheOutpost.ai). **Amazon**, **Microsoft**, **OpenAI**, and **Anthropic** are fiercely fighting for supremacy in generative artificial intelligence models, yet they now share a common funding structure to manage the social fallout of that race. This **unusual convergence** reflects an implicit recognition: the political and reputational risk of ignoring the jobs issue could, over time, curb the social acceptability of their own products, a calculation that goes well beyond simple philanthropy. ### A signal sent to foreign governments The scale of this **American private mobilization** has not gone unnoticed internationally. It sends a **clear signal** to allied Western governments: managing the transition tied to artificial intelligence is becoming a matter of **geopolitical competitiveness** as much as a domestic social issue. Countries that manage to help their workforce through this transformation will keep a **strategic advantage** over rivals, notably China, which is investing massively in automation without the same social transparency constraints. The **implicit bet** of RAISE US is that the West cannot afford to lose the trust of its own population in the technology it seeks to dominate globally. *This **geopolitical dimension** is rarely mentioned in coverage of RAISE US, but it strikes me as central. If American or European workers lose trust in artificial intelligence because it destroys their jobs without compensation, the **political pressure** to slow down or heavily regulate the technology will rise — and that would be a **gift** to the West's strategic rivals, who do not face that kind of democratic constraint.* ## Conclusion: a test, not a solution ### What RAISE US can actually prove **RAISE US** is neither a complete answer to the economic disruption caused by artificial intelligence, nor a mere corporate communications operation devoid of substance. It is a **test at the scale of four states**, backed by **significant funding** that is probably still insufficient against the scale of the problem, and paired with a **more rigorous evaluation method** than most previous government programs. The true measure of its success will not come from the press releases of **June 2026**, but from real employment data in Arkansas, Connecticut, Maryland, and Utah over the next **eighteen to thirty-six months**. ### The West facing its own mirror This initiative illustrates a broader dynamic: Western societies leading the artificial intelligence race must show they can manage the social consequences of their own technological head start, or risk a political backlash that could weaken their ability to keep innovating against rivals, notably Chinese ones, who do not face the same internal democratic constraints. Getting this transition right is not just a matter of **social justice** — it is a condition for the **continued legitimacy of Western technological leadership**. *I end this piece with more **questions than certainties**, and I think it is honest to say so. RAISE US could become an **effective model for workforce retraining**, or remain a **symbolic gesture** quickly forgotten. What is certain is that the **scale of the problem** it is trying to address will only **keep growing**, and the West does not have the luxury of **getting this wrong twice**.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [Axios — Anthropic joins Sec. Gina Raimondo's AI labor efforts, June 25, 2026](https://www.axios.com/2026/06/25/anthropic-labor-market-ai-jobs-crisis) - [The New York Times — Big Companies Aim to Ease A.I. Transition for American Workers, June 25, 2026](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/business/economy/ai-work-force-training-job-losses.html) - [Politico — $500 million AI jobs push launches with bipartisan backing, June 25, 2026](https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/25/500-million-ai-jobs-push-launches-with-bipartisan-backing-00975439) ### Secondary sources - [AI Driven Talent — AI's Biggest Job Cutters Just Pledged $500M to Retrain the Displaced, July 2, 2026](https://talentnews.substack.com/p/ais-biggest-job-cutters-just-pledged) - [Tech Times — AI Workforce Retraining Fund Hits $500M, June 30, 2026](https://www.techtimes.com/articles/319395/20260630/ai-workforce-retraining-fund-hits-500m-companies-cutting-jobs-are-paying-fix.htm) - [TheOutpost.ai — AI Giants Back $500M Non-Profit to Retrain Workers, June 25, 2026](https://theoutpost.ai/news-story/ai-giants-back-500-m-non-profit-to-retrain-workers-as-automation-accelerates-job-displacement-27896/) - [The Register — AI giants back non-profit to retrain workers left behind by AI, June 26, 2026](https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/06/26/ai-giants-back-non-profit-to-retrain-workers-left-behind-by-ai/5262601) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/le-pari-a-500-millions-des-geants-de-lia-pour-reparer-les-emplois-quils-detruisent