Federal AI Legislation Status, Explained

By Alex (J.D. candidate, not a lawyer)

As of November 3, 2026, the main federal AI items in Washington are proposals. Three are bills introduced in September 2026, and one is a House bill introduced in July 2026. One is a draft bill with no bill number, and one is a senator's framework with no bill text.

This page quotes each item from its own text and gives its status. California's own AI laws are listed in the California AI law tracker. This page is general information about the law.

Federal AI proposals at a glance

  1. S. 5576 would create an AI Safety Board in the Commerce Department.
  2. S. 5648, the TAG Act, covers AI in federal agency decisions.
  3. H.R. 10538 would create a Department of Artificial Intelligence.
  4. The CLAIM Act is a draft bill on AI developer liability.
  5. Sen. Cantwell's framework lists six principles and has no bill text.
  6. H.R. 9925 has a section on state AI laws.

As of November 3, 2026, congress.gov lists each numbered bill on this page as introduced and referred to committee. None has passed either chamber.

S. 5576: the AI Safety Board bill

S. 5576 is titled the "Artificial Intelligence Risk Management and Security Act of 2026." The text says Sen. Mark Warner introduced it on September 29, 2026, for himself, Sen. Schatz, and Sen. Kim. It was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

What the bill says. Section 3(a)(1)(A) says the Secretary of Commerce "shall establish within the Department of Commerce a board to address artificial intelligence risks." Section 3(a)(1)(B) says the board "shall be known as the 'Artificial Intelligence Safety Board'."

Section 4(a) says: "Each developer shall develop, publish, and follow a safety plan (referred to in this section as the 'Model Safety Plan')" for each AI system or model that the developer creates, substantially modifies, or uses in training or evaluating other models. Under section 4(b)(4), each plan must include "the identity of the corporate officer responsible for the implementation of the Model Safety Plan."

The bill uses the definition of "artificial intelligence" in 15 U.S.C. 9401. This page does not describe that definition.

Status. As of November 3, 2026, congress.gov lists S. 5576 as introduced and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Read the bill on govinfo. Status on congress.gov.

S. 5648, the TAG Act: AI decisions by federal agencies

S. 5648 is titled the "Transparent Automated Governance Act" or the "TAG Act." The text says Sen. Gary Peters introduced it on September 30, 2026, for himself and Sen. Lankford. It was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

What the bill says. The bill directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance to federal agencies. It uses the definition of "agency" in 44 U.S.C. 3502, which this page does not describe.

Section 2(4) defines a "critical decision" as an agency determination "the outcome of which meaningfully affects access to, or the cost, terms, or availability of" listed items. The list includes "employment," "transportation," "financial services, including access to credit or insurance," "healthcare," and "housing, lodging, or public accommodations."

Notice

Section 3(b)(5) covers guidance on how agencies "shall provide clear, conspicuous, and prompt plain language notice to an individual that a critical decision concerning the individual was made using an augmented critical decision process."

Appeal

Section 3(b)(7) would require agencies to set up an appeal process. It calls for "a process for individuals who are subject to adverse decisions in an augmented critical decision process to appeal that adverse decision and receive timely recourse," including "a maximum number of days for the appeals process."

Human review

Section 3(b)(9)(A) covers guidance on giving individuals "the opportunity for an alternative review by a human being working for or on behalf of the agency with respect to the critical decision."

Section 5 says that, beginning 10 years after the guidance is issued, "this Act shall have no force or effect."

Status. As of November 3, 2026, congress.gov lists S. 5648 as introduced and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Read the bill on govinfo. Status on congress.gov.

H.R. 10538: the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act

H.R. 10538 is titled the "Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act of 2026." The text says Rep. Greg Casar introduced it on September 24, 2026, with others. It was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

What the bill says. Section 4(b) says the purpose of a new Department of Artificial Intelligence includes "enforcing a pause on development of advanced artificial intelligence and a prohibition on artificial superintelligence."

Section 3(1)(A) defines an "advanced artificial intelligence system" as one "trained on computing power greater than or equal to" 10 to the 25th power integer or floating point operations. Section 3(1)(B) has the Secretary adjust that threshold each year.

Section 8(a) says that, during a set period, "each advanced artificial intelligence system shall be subject to a mandatory pause; and" "no unreleased advanced artificial intelligence system may be deployed during this period." Under section 8(b), that period ends when the Secretary determines that the Department "is fully staffed" and has issued the rules described in section 8(c).

Status and penalties. As of November 3, 2026, congress.gov lists H.R. 10538 as introduced and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The bill's text includes penalties. Section 13(b) says a "covered policymaking individual or rogue actor who recklessly violates section 8, 9, or 12 or a rule promulgated thereunder shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, and imprisoned for not more than 20 years." Section 13(c)(1) says other individuals who recklessly violate those sections "shall be barred from employment in the artificial intelligence industry for a period of 10 years." Read the bill on govinfo. Status on congress.gov.

The bill also covers an advisory board, charters, disclosure, and international coordination.

The CLAIM Act: AI developer liability

Status. The CLAIM Act is a draft bill released by Rep. Trahan's office. The posted draft has no bill number, and SentryHall found no introduced version on congress.gov as of November 3, 2026. Section 1 gives its short title: the "Clear Liability for Artificial Intelligence Misconduct Act" or the "CLAIM Act."

What the draft says. Section 3(a) reads in part:

"Except with respect to any cause of action for defamation, a developer of an artificial intelligence system shall be liable, regardless of the degree of care exercised, for all reasonably foreseeable injuries to a non-user of the artificial intelligence system if"

The injuries must be "factually and proximately caused by an artificial intelligence system that engages in conduct that, if undertaken by an adult human of sound mind, would satisfy the elements of negligence or any intentional tort or crime." Neither the user nor any intermediary that modified the system may have "intended the conduct" or been "negligent with respect to the risk of the artificial intelligence system engaging in the conduct."

Other sections of the draft say:

  1. Section 3(c): whether conduct meets those elements "shall be determined under the law of the State in which the injury occurred."
  2. Section 4(c): "it shall not be a defense that artificial intelligence systems are incapable of having mental states."
  3. Section 5(c): a civil action may not be commenced "later than 3 years after the date on which the plaintiff discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury that is the basis of the action."
  4. Section 8: the draft would apply "to conduct occurring, and injuries arising, on or after" the date of enactment.
  5. Section 9: it "shall cease to have effect on the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment."

Read the draft (PDF).

Sen. Cantwell's AI governance framework

On October 7, 2026, Sen. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, released a framework of principles. It has no bill text. The release lists six principles:

  • Clear, Enforceable Federal Safety Standards for Frontier AI Development and Deployment
  • Continuous Testing, Reviewing and Auditing to Verify Standards are Met
  • Transparency and Accountability Through Disclosure, Oversight and Consequences
  • Public Private Partnerships to Benefit the Public Good
  • Protections for Children, Support for Workers and Human Oversight of Consequential AI
  • U.S. Led Global Cooperation in Adopting and Upholding Common AI Safety and Security Standards

The release also says: "Covered models should not be released until they have undergone an independent audit confirming that they meet these safeguards and standards." Read the release.

Federal proposals and state AI laws

The state attorneys general letter. On September 23, 2026, state attorneys general sent a letter to congressional leaders. It was signed by 26 attorneys general, from 24 states, the District of Columbia, and American Samoa. California Attorney General Rob Bonta signed it. Among the items it asks Congress to include:

"Explicit preservation of state authority by prohibiting the preemption of state laws and granting state officials full authority to enforce these federal protections."

A footnote in the letter cites "CA SB 53," which is listed in the tracker as SB 53, the Transparency in Frontier AI Act.

The CLAIM Act draft. Section 6 says: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt, displace, or otherwise limit any cause of action, remedy, standard of liability, or other protection available under the law of any State or political subdivision of a State."

H.R. 9925. H.R. 9925, the "FRONTIER Act," was introduced by Rep. Jay Obernolte on July 23, 2026. As of November 3, 2026, congress.gov lists it as referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Section 9(b) says:

"Except as provided in subsection (c), no State or political subdivision of a State may adopt or enforce any law, regulation, order, or other requirement that imposes new substantive obligations on artificial intelligence developers with respect to any Covered Subject Area."

Section 9(a) defines "Covered Subject Area," and section 9(c) lists exceptions. Read H.R. 9925 on congress.gov.

For the state bills California acted on this year, see What the Governor Did With California's 2026 AI Bills.

How we checked

SentryHall read each bill on govinfo or congress.gov, the CLAIM Act draft on Rep. Trahan's website, the framework on the Commerce Committee's website, and the letter as published by the New York Attorney General. Each bill's status was checked on congress.gov on November 3, 2026.

Sources

SentryHall publishes general legal information for educational purposes. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The author is a law student, not a lawyer. Laws change and apply differently to different facts. For advice about your situation, talk with a lawyer licensed in California. You can look up a lawyer's license status at calbar.ca.gov.

Official California resources: Self-Help Guide to the California Courts, State Bar attorney license search, and the State Bar list of certified lawyer referral services.

Full disclaimer