Latest action: Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 35 - 0.
Committee has approved the bill (usually with amendments) and sent it back to the full chamber.
The committee voted to send the bill to the floor of the full chamber. The Speaker of the House schedules a floor vote.
Next: Passed One Chamber
The other chamber (Senate or House) repeats the committee + floor-vote process
Requires AI companies to report security flaws and improve safety practices.
The problem
AI systems may have hidden weaknesses that bad actors could exploit. Companies lack clear rules for finding and reporting these problems quickly.
The proposal
Bill sets requirements for AI developers to find security flaws, report them to government, and fix them. Establishes standards for AI safety testing and disclosure.
The impact
AI companies must invest in security programs. Researchers and government gain better visibility into AI risks. Users may benefit from safer AI systems.
Requiring companies to find and fix flaws before release could prevent harmful AI errors. This protects the public from dangerous outcomes caused by undiscovered security problems.
Government and researchers get clearer data about AI vulnerabilities. This knowledge helps everyone understand risks and develop better protections faster.
Clear rules create fair competition by requiring all companies to meet the same safety standards. Companies that already invest in security won't face unfair disadvantage.
Mandatory reporting creates incentives to find problems before release. This catches issues when they're easier and cheaper to fix.
Small AI companies may struggle to afford expensive security testing and reporting systems. Larger companies can more easily absorb these costs, creating unfair competitive advantage.
Strict requirements and mandatory testing could delay release of new AI tools. Longer development timelines might discourage companies from investing in AI research.
Requiring public reporting of security flaws could give bad actors a roadmap to attack systems. Details shared with government might accidentally leak to criminals.
Without specific definitions, companies may disagree about what counts as a reportable flaw. Inconsistent enforcement could create confusion and legal disputes.
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 10671
Securing Our Critical Infrastructure Act
HR 10695
United States Submarine Cable Security Policy Act of 2026
HR 7022
Mystic Alerts Act
S 5668
Methane Monitoring Science Act of 2026
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.