Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
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
Creates a CISA task force to develop AI security standards and protections.
The problem
Artificial intelligence systems pose potential security risks. The government lacks coordinated plans to protect critical infrastructure from AI threats.
The proposal
Establishes a Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency task force to study AI security challenges and recommend policies protecting critical systems.
The impact
Federal agencies, technology companies, and critical infrastructure operators must follow new AI security guidelines. Citizens may experience safer digital systems and services.
A coordinated government task force can identify AI security risks before they harm important infrastructure like power grids and hospitals. This proactive approach helps prevent cyberattacks that could affect millions of people.
Clear AI security rules help all companies follow the same guidelines. This reduces confusion and makes it easier for businesses to protect their systems consistently.
Government expertise combined with private sector input produces better security recommendations. This partnership approach draws on both government knowledge and industry experience.
New regulations and security requirements can slow down AI development and increase costs for technology companies. Companies might spend more money meeting requirements instead of creating new products.
The bill has no official summary, making it hard to understand exact requirements and costs. Congress and the public cannot fully evaluate what this bill actually does.
New security rules might give government too much control over private technology companies. Companies worry about losing flexibility and facing heavy compliance burdens.
The bill doesn't explain how recommendations will be enforced or what happens if companies don't comply. This uncertainty makes it difficult to predict real-world effects.
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
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.