Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill prohibits AI systems from censoring content based on political viewpoint or ideology.
The problem
Concern that artificial intelligence companies may suppress certain political viewpoints or ideological speech through content moderation policies.
The proposal
Restricts AI providers from censoring lawful speech based on political beliefs, viewpoints, or ideology. Requires transparency in content moderation decisions.
The impact
Affects AI companies, content platforms, users seeking speech protections, and platforms managing harmful content online.
Prevents AI systems from selectively removing content based on political ideology. Ensures diverse viewpoints remain available online. Helps preserve open political debate.
Requires companies to explain their content moderation choices. Users gain clarity on why content gets removed. Reduces concerns about hidden bias in algorithms.
Restricts companies from making broad censorship decisions unilaterally. Creates legal limits on private companies controlling political speech. Protects users from arbitrary removal.
Platforms may differentiate by offering different speech policies. Creates incentive for alternative platforms. Users gain more choices in where they share content.
Hard to prove why AI made censorship decisions. Determining political viewpoint versus other reasons is complicated. Companies may face frequent lawsuits over moderation choices.
May force platforms to allow misinformation, harassment, or illegal content. Cannot distinguish between legitimate politics and dangerous speech. Could increase hate speech or threats online.
Companies must document and justify all content removals. Requires costly new systems to track moderation decisions. May make platforms reluctant to remove genuinely harmful content.
Limits companies' ability to set their own rules. May violate property rights of platform owners. Forces platforms to host content they disagree with.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 10764
Executive Settlement Review Act
HR 8352
Criminal History Access Act of 2026
S 32
LACA
HR 10389
Survivor’s Voice Protection Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.