5 No sign of it. We found no public evidence tying Amentum's cuts to AI.
Every tracked 2026 layoff at Amentum, newest first. Scores are 0–100: how strongly the public evidence ties the cuts to AI. Sources are linked on each one.
AI score 3/100 (Minimal) · 80% interval 3–4 · evidence grade D · FL · Government & Facilities Services
Stated reason: NASA decided to bring work it calls core competencies in-house at Kennedy Space Center under its workforce directive, so Amentum is laying off 70 engineers, technicians and test conductors on its Base Operations and Spaceport Services (BOSS) contract. Amentum cited "changes in contract requirements and reduced work on the BOSS contract."
Why 3: Government funding / contract cuts · Drivers: contrary evidence −0.5, industry AI exposure +0.4
Evidence: state WARN notice, major-outlet report. Signals: attribution 0.0, primary source 0.0, exec statement 0.0, role exposure 0.888, industry exposure 0.65, AI investment 0.0, contrary evidence 0.3 · named roles: Computer Systems Analysts, Data Scientists, Software Developers
Note: WARN letter (2026-09-25): NASA notified BOSS of its decision to insource core-competency functions. NASA: not a reflection on contractor performance.
Headcount basis: WARN (sum of state notices; company-wide total not disclosed) · WARN: 70 workers at 1 site notice(s)
AI score 4/100 (Minimal) · 80% interval 3–5 · evidence grade D · MD, OR · Government & Facilities Services
Stated reason: Contract transitions: Hanover, MD cuts followed intelligence-contract transitions, and in Hillsboro, OR, Intel awarded Amentum's facilities contract to a competitor.
Why 4: Weak demand, lost customer or contract · Drivers: industry AI exposure +0.4, contrary evidence −0.2
Evidence: state WARN notice, major-outlet report. Signals: attribution 0.0, primary source 0.0, exec statement 0.0, role exposure 0.702, industry exposure 0.65, AI investment 0.0, contrary evidence 0.15 · typical Professional & Business Services roles (no roles named)
Headcount basis: WARN (sum of state notices; company-wide total not disclosed) · WARN: 456 workers at 3 site notice(s)
AI score 5/100 (Minimal) · 80% interval 4–6 · evidence grade D · MD · NAICS 541330
Stated reason: No reason published in the state WARN data
Why 5: No stated reason · Drivers: industry AI exposure +0.3
Evidence: state WARN notice. Signals: attribution 0.0, primary source 0.0, exec statement 0.0, role exposure 0.5, industry exposure 0.502, AI investment 0.0, contrary evidence 0.0 · typical Other / Unknown roles (no roles named)
Headcount basis: WARN (sum of state notices) · WARN: 36 workers at 2 site notice(s)
Scores are evidence-based estimates from a published model, not findings that AI caused any layoff. Spot something wrong or missing? Tell us.
Other Other / Unknown layoffs we track.
