Sara Jacobs (D-CA)
Sectoral AI Governance Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Sectoral AI Governance Act of 2026. It gives the head of each federal agency the power to make rules regulating algorithmic decision-making systems if those systems are likely to cause violations of federal laws. Agencies must generally provide advance notice to the public and seek comments before issuing these rules. The bill also requires agencies to consult with other offices, coordinate requirements, and consider how rules might disrupt public benefits. Furthermore, agencies must periodically review their rules and submit biennial reports to Congress regarding their rulemaking and enforcement activities.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +5
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?
The bill explicitly empowers federal agency heads to issue binding rules governing the use of algorithmic decision-making systems and artificial intelligence.
- Scored +4
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill grants broad new rulemaking authority to the heads of federal agencies regarding algorithmic systems.
- Scored +3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The legislation mandates advance notices of proposed rulemaking and public biennial reporting on enforcement and algorithmic impacts.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Business owners utilizing algorithmic decision-making systems face potential new federal rules and administrative enforcement penalties.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Mitigation of Public Benefit Disruption: Under Section 3(c), agency heads are required to consider whether the use of an algorithmic decision-making system happens in connection with a government service or public benefit. Where practicable, they must seek to mitigate unnecessary adverse effects on the delivery, accessibility, timeliness, integrity, or continuity of such services or benefits. This is positive because it helps protect everyday people from losing access to critical government help due to new tech rules.
-
Public Engagement and Transparency: Under Section 3(a)(3), agencies generally must issue an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking at least 60 days before a notice of proposed rulemaking, giving the public a chance to comment on the proposed rules. This gives everyday citizens a voice in how algorithms are regulated.
-
Accountability Through Reporting: Under Section 3(f), agencies that engage in rulemaking must submit biennial reports to Congress and make them publicly available. These reports include summaries of enforcement actions and comments received regarding potential discriminatory effects, which helps hold our elected and appointed officials accountable.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Civil Enforcement Penalties: Under Section 3(a)(2), a violation of a rule made under this authority will be treated as a violation of the underlying federal law for administrative and civil enforcement purposes. This could lead to penalties or burdens for individuals or groups who run afoul of the new algorithmic rules set by agencies.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill grants broad new rulemaking authority to the heads of federal agencies regarding algorithmic systems. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation mandates advance notices of proposed rulemaking and public biennial reporting on enforcement and algorithmic impacts.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — The bill explicitly empowers federal agency heads to issue binding rules governing the use of algorithmic decision-making systems and artificial intelligence.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill authorizes federal agencies to regulate algorithmic decision-making systems to prevent violations of federal law, which indirectly enhances consumer protection against algorithmic harms.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Agency reporting requirements include summarizing comments and evidence regarding potential disparate impacts and discriminatory effects associated with algorithmic systems.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill requires agencies to mitigate unnecessary adverse effects on the delivery and continuity of government public benefits tied to algorithms. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners utilizing algorithmic decision-making systems face potential new federal rules and administrative enforcement penalties.
- 11/11/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/25/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/4/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/3/2026
- Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Introduced in House
Valerie FousheeDemocrat · North Carolina
Ted LieuDemocrat · California
George WhitesidesDemocrat · California
James WalkinshawDemocrat · Virginia