Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB652

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/13/25
• Refer: 11/13/25
• Report Pass: 1/6/26
• Refer: 1/6/26
• Engrossed: 1/20/26
• Refer: 1/23/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to repeal 108.04 (12) (f) 3., 108.17 (2g), 108.17 (7) and 108.205 (1m); to renumber 108.04 (12) (f) 4.; to renumber and amend 108.04 (11) (cm), 108.04 (12) (f) 1m. and 2m. and 108.14 (21); to amend 108.04 (2) (h), 108.04 (11) (d), 108.04 (11) (f), 108.05 (1) (r), 108.05 (9), 108.05 (10) (intro.), 108.095 (2), 108.14 (2e), 108.14 (19), 108.14 (20), 108.16 (3) (a), 108.17 (2), 108.17 (2b), 108.205 (2), 108.22 (1) (ac), 108.22 (1) (ad) 1., 108.22 (1) (af) and 108.225 (16) (am) 1. c.; to create 108.022, 108.04 (1) (hg), 108.04 (2) (hL), 108.04 (8) (bm), 108.04 (11) (cm) 2., 108.05 (1) (s), 108.05 (7m) (title), (c) and (d), 108.14 (10m), 108.14 (21) (b), 108.14 (30) and 108.185 of the statutes; Relating to: various changes to the unemployment insurance law. (FE)

Summary

AB652 makes a broad set of changes to Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance (UI) system, administered by the Department of Workforce Development. The bill raises the maximum weekly UI benefit from $370 to $395 for weeks beginning on or after December 28, 2025, while leaving the minimum benefit unchanged. It also changes how UI interacts with Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) by replacing the current outright ineligibility rule with a reduction in UI benefits equal to one-half of the SSDI amount allocated to the week, and it adds a new $5,000 penalty for intentionally filing a false initial claim in another person’s name without actually obtaining benefits.

Impact

The bill would amend multiple provisions in Chapter 108 of the Wisconsin Statutes, affecting claimant eligibility, benefit calculations, fraud enforcement, employer reporting, and DWD administrative procedures. It creates new reporting and disqualification rules when employers verify that a claimant declined an interview, refused a job offer, failed to attend an interview, or did not report for the first day of work; it also expands identity-proofing, database matching, and work-search audit requirements. On the employer side, it makes electronic filing and electronic payment requirements more broadly mandatory, subject to a good-cause exception, and adds related penalties for noncompliance. The bill also updates levy, overpayment, and fraud-collection provisions to align with the new penalty structure and administrative processes.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support in the Assembly, where it passed 53-44 after an amendment was laid on the table. That vote pattern indicates a largely partisan or divided response rather than consensus. No committee transcript is available, but the bill’s structure suggests it was framed as a UI integrity and modernization measure, with some benefit expansion through the higher maximum weekly payment. Overall, the sentiment appears mixed: supportive of stronger fraud controls and administrative efficiency, but contested because of tighter claimant eligibility rules and expanded employer reporting authority.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be the new employer reporting mechanism, the stricter treatment of interview no-shows and job-offer refusals, and the expanded fraud-detection tools, all of which increase claimant scrutiny and can reduce benefits. Another likely area of dispute is the SSDI offset change: instead of disqualifying claimants entirely, the bill allows partial concurrent receipt, which may be viewed as either a fairer coordination of benefits or an improper duplication of public assistance. Employer groups may support the electronic filing and payment mandates as administrative streamlining, while smaller employers, claimants with limited internet access, low digital literacy, disabilities, or language barriers may object to the added compliance burden despite the bill’s good-cause exceptions.