Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
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
Requires the Defense Department to report on artificial intelligence reliability and safety measures.
The problem
The military increasingly uses AI systems for critical decisions. There are concerns about AI reliability, failures, and whether safeguards exist to prevent problems or accidents.
The proposal
The bill directs the Department of Defense to create reports on how AI systems work, their reliability rates, testing methods, and safety procedures for military applications.
The impact
Military officials, AI developers, Congress, and defense contractors must document and explain their AI systems. Taxpayers and military personnel may face changes in how AI is used in defense operations.
Congress and the public get more information about how the military uses artificial intelligence. This helps lawmakers make better decisions about defense spending and AI policies. Transparency can build public trust in military technology.
Requiring reports on reliability encourages the military to test AI systems more thoroughly. This could prevent AI failures that might cause harm or mistakes in critical situations.
Regular reporting creates a record of AI performance and problems. If something goes wrong, officials can review what happened and who was responsible. This encourages better practices.
Detailed reports give Congress the information needed to approve budgets and set rules for AI use. Lawmakers can make informed decisions about military technology spending.
Requiring detailed reports takes time and money. The military must hire people to collect data, write reports, and submit them to Congress. These costs could reduce money available for actual defense equipment.
Strict reporting requirements and safety reviews might make it harder and slower for the military to build and test new AI systems. This could put the U.S. behind other countries developing military AI.
Reports about how military AI systems work might reveal sensitive information to other countries or enemies. Even reports kept somewhat private could accidentally leak details about U.S. defense capabilities.
The bill does not explain exactly what should be in reports or how detailed they need to be. This confusion could lead to arguments about compliance and inconsistent reporting across different military branches.
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.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
No donor data found for current cycle
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.