Efforts to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act are active in the 119th Congress, but the law is not close to being repealed. Senator Mike Lee and Representative Eric Burlison introduced companion bills in April 2026 to strike the 1931 federal prevailing wage law, and the House version sits in committee. Similar standalone bills have been filed for decades without reaching a floor vote, and Davis-Bacon coverage has in fact been expanded through recent infrastructure, clean energy, and semiconductor legislation.
The 2026 Repeal Bills
On April 30, 2026, Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act in the Senate, with a companion bill, H.R. 8602, filed in the House by Representative Eric Burlison of Missouri.1Congress.gov. H.R.8602: Davis-Bacon Repeal Act The House bill was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Eight Republican senators signed on as cosponsors: Ted Cruz of Texas, Rick Scott of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Katie Britt of Alabama, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Ted Budd of North Carolina, and Joni Ernst of Iowa.2Office of Senator Mike Lee. Lee Introduces Davis-Bacon Repeal Act Lee called the law “an antiquated piece of legislation that hurts middle class workers and every American taxpayer.” Burlison said “the federal government should not be forcing taxpayers to overpay for roads, bridges, schools, and public buildings because of a nearly century-old mandate.”3Office of Rep. Eric Burlison. Burlison, Lee Introduce Davis-Bacon Repeal Act The Associated Builders and Contractors, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council endorsed the bills.
This is not a new effort. A Davis-Bacon Repeal Act (H.R. 720) was filed in the 118th Congress in 2023.4Congress.gov. H.R.720: Davis-Bacon Repeal Act (118th Congress) Standalone repeal bills have been introduced repeatedly over the decades without advancing to a floor vote.
What Repeal Would Eliminate
The Davis-Bacon Act applies to federal and District of Columbia construction contracts worth more than $2,000. It covers the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings and public works, including painting and decorating. Contractors must pay laborers and mechanics no less than the locally prevailing wage and fringe benefits set by the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, which surveys wages in each locality and publishes the results as wage determinations on SAM.gov.5U.S. Department of Labor. Davis-Bacon Conformance FAQ
Wage determinations are broken into four categories: building, residential, highway, and heavy construction.6U.S. Department of Energy. Ensuring Prevailing Wages: A Closer Look at the Davis-Bacon Act Workers must be paid at least weekly, and contractors can meet the obligation through cash wages, bona fide fringe benefits, or a combination. Beyond the original act, Congress has extended prevailing wage requirements to projects receiving federal grants, loans, and loan guarantees through more than fifty “Davis-Bacon Related Acts.”7Congress.gov. CRS Report: Davis-Bacon Act Repeal of the underlying act would remove the prevailing wage floor from all of that federal construction spending.
The Case for Repeal
Repeal supporters build their case on three claims: the law drives up federal construction costs, it suppresses competition, and the wage-setting process is broken.
On cost, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in December 2024 that repealing the act would reduce federal spending by roughly $17.8 billion in discretionary outlays and $400 million in mandatory outlays over the 2025–2034 period, largely through lower labor costs and reduced compliance expenses.8Congressional Budget Office. Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act A 1995 Senate report placed the Davis-Bacon cost premium at 3.4% to 38% above market rates depending on the study, and cited specific projects where contractors were required to pay $21.24 per hour for work priced at $14.00 on private jobs in the same metro area.9GovInfo. Senate Report 104-80 The Heritage Foundation, drawing on a 9.9% cost-inflation figure from the Beacon Hill Institute, put the annual taxpayer surcharge at $21.5 billion.10The Heritage Foundation. Davis-Bacon Act: End It, Don’t Amend It
On competition, the Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade group representing predominantly non-union contractors, surveyed members and reported that 75% said prevailing wage regulations make them less likely to bid on taxpayer-funded projects.11Associated Builders and Contractors. ABC Statement on Davis-Bacon Act Reforms The 1995 Senate report argued that inflated wage schedules and rigid craft-by-craft work rules often favor large outside firms that can absorb compliance burdens, while local contractors avoid federal work to avoid disrupting their existing pay structures.9GovInfo. Senate Report 104-80
On the wage survey process, the CBO has noted that survey responses are often insufficient to generate accurate wage estimates at the county level.12Congressional Budget Office. CBO Budget Option: Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act The Heritage Foundation and ABC have pointed to reports from the Labor Department’s own Inspector General identifying hundreds of errors in contractor surveys, and to DOL’s use of internal estimation rather than Bureau of Labor Statistics data.10The Heritage Foundation. Davis-Bacon Act: End It, Don’t Amend It
The most prominent government endorsement of repeal came from the Government Accountability Office in 1979. In a report titled “The Davis-Bacon Act Should Be Repealed,” GAO concluded the law was inflationary and that after nearly fifty years the Labor Department had failed to issue accurate wage determinations, and might find it “impractical to ever do so.”13U.S. Government Accountability Office. HRD-79-18: The Davis-Bacon Act Should Be Repealed GAO examined 30 projects and found that in 12 localities, DOL wage rates exceeded actual prevailing rates by an average of 37%. It estimated the act and the related Copeland Anti-Kickback Act’s reporting requirements generated roughly $190 million per year in unnecessary contractor costs and over $10 million in unnecessary federal administrative costs in the mid-1970s. About half of the wage determinations GAO reviewed were based on union-negotiated rates rather than actual surveys of local wages paid.14U.S. Government Accountability Office. GAO Report HRD-79-18 Congress never acted on the recommendation, and GAO now lists the status as “Closed – Not Implemented,” noting that congressional action is “highly unlikely.”
The Case Against Repeal
Labor unions, civil rights organizations, and worker advocates have fought repeal at every turn. The AFL-CIO calls the Davis-Bacon Act “an essential foundation of a decent standard of living” and projects that repeal would cost construction workers an average of $1,477 per year, about 5% of annual income.15AFL-CIO. AFL-CIO Statement on Davis-Bacon
Defenders argue the law prevents a race to the bottom on wages. Without prevailing wage requirements, contractors face pressure to undercut local labor markets by importing lower-paid workers from elsewhere. The Department of Labor has argued that by removing wages as a competitive variable, the act forces contractors to compete on productivity and management efficiency.16U.S. Department of Labor. DOL Statement on Davis-Bacon Act
On safety, the AFL-CIO estimates that repeal would result in roughly 76,000 additional workplace injuries per year and over 675,000 lost work days.15AFL-CIO. AFL-CIO Statement on Davis-Bacon A 2008 Economic Policy Institute report found construction fatality rates were 25% lower in states with their own prevailing wage laws than in those without.17Economic Policy Institute. Prevailing Wage Laws and Construction
Supporters also push back on the claim that the law is inherently pro-union. The Labor Department reported in 1995 that only 29% of prevailing wage schedules required collectively bargained rates, while 48% were based on non-union rates and 23% were mixed.16U.S. Department of Labor. DOL Statement on Davis-Bacon Act Organizations including the NAACP, the A. Philip Randolph Institute, and the Building and Construction Trades Department have endorsed the law, arguing it protects minority workers from wage exploitation and supports apprenticeship pathways into higher-paying construction work.18International Union of Bricklayers. Davis-Bacon Q&A
What State-Level Repeals Show
The federal debate has played out in miniature at the state level. As of 2023, 28 states plus the District of Columbia had their own prevailing wage laws covering state and local construction. At least fifteen states have repealed theirs at various points, including six between 2015 and 2018: Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arkansas.19Illinois Economic Policy Institute. Economic Impact of Prevailing Wage Law Repeals
Research is cited by both sides. Economists Daniel Kessler and Lawrence Katz, in a study published through the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that in states that repealed prevailing wage laws during the 1970s and 1980s, construction workers’ average wages declined by 2% to 4%, and the union wage premium dropped by roughly 10 percentage points. The same study found repeal did not lower wages for Black construction workers and raised their industry wage premium by about 4 percentage points relative to other workers.20National Bureau of Economic Research. Effects of Repealing Prevailing Wage Laws
The Illinois Economic Policy Institute reached different conclusions about the 2015–2018 repeal states, reporting 4% to 13% slower income growth for construction workers, jobsite fatality rates 14% higher than in prevailing-wage states, reduced health insurance coverage, and increased reliance on food stamps. It also found that repeal did not increase bid competition and reduced market share for in-state contractors.19Illinois Economic Policy Institute. Economic Impact of Prevailing Wage Law Repeals After Utah repealed its prevailing wage law in 1981, apprenticeship enrollments dropped 40% and cost overruns reportedly tripled over the following decade.17Economic Policy Institute. Prevailing Wage Laws and Construction
On the core question of whether prevailing wage laws raise construction costs, the Illinois EPI report noted that 17 of 20 peer-reviewed academic studies concluded prevailing wage laws have no statistically significant effect on overall construction costs, because labor is a relatively small share of total project expenditures.19Illinois Economic Policy Institute. Economic Impact of Prevailing Wage Law Repeals
Why Repeal Faces Long Odds
The main obstacle to repeal is that Congress keeps moving in the other direction. Three major laws passed in 2021 and 2022 substantially expanded prevailing wage coverage.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 applied Davis-Bacon protections to a wide range of federally funded infrastructure projects. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 made prevailing wage and apprenticeship compliance a condition for receiving enhanced clean energy tax credits, allowing taxpayers who meet the requirements to multiply the base amount of credits such as the Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credit by five. The IRS and Treasury administer those provisions.21U.S. Department of Labor. Inflation Reduction Act and Prevailing Wages The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 requires all recipients of CHIPS funding from the Department of Commerce to comply with Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements for construction, alteration, and repair of semiconductor fabrication facilities, with the obligation flowing through all levels of subcontracting.22National Institute of Standards and Technology. Davis-Bacon and Related Acts 101 and FAQ The Associated Builders and Contractors has called the extension into private-sector projects like clean energy and semiconductor plants “bureaucratic overreach.”23Associated Builders and Contractors. ABC Davis-Bacon Resource Page
The Trump administration has not moved to weaken Davis-Bacon since returning to office in January 2025. On February 19, 2025, a federal judge in Texas granted a 90-day stay in litigation over the Biden-era Davis-Bacon regulatory overhaul at the joint request of the Labor Department and industry plaintiffs, so new DOL leadership could review the case. The bulk of the Biden-era rule stayed in effect.24King & Spalding. Trump Administration’s DOL Pauses Litigation of Biden-Era Rule The Spring 2025 regulatory agenda, released in September 2025, contained no proposals to reverse the modernization rule. The Labor Department did signal plans to issue a direct final rule in October 2025 revising procedural rules for enforcement proceedings.25SWACCA. Trump Administration Releases First Regulatory Agenda As of mid-2026, no executive order or formal rulemaking has been issued to rescind or weaken Davis-Bacon requirements.
Prevailing wage requirements draw enough support from both parties, from construction labor, and from some contractor groups that full repeal has never come close to passing. The GAO closed its own 1979 repeal recommendation as unlikely to be implemented, and more than four decades later that assessment still holds.