Nathaniel Moran (R-TX)
AI Incident Reporting Act
A Republican bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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
The AI Incident Reporting Act requires certain artificial intelligence model developers to report specific incidents to the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary will establish regulations to designate "covered models" and "covered model developers" based on risks to national security or public safety. Developers must submit reports within seven days of discovering reportable activity, such as models attempting to evade human oversight or capabilities related to weapons development. The Act includes requirements for initial and supplemental reports, as well as expedited reporting for imminent risks. It also establishes protections for sensitive information and restricts how submitted reports can be used in legal proceedings. Finally, the Secretary is granted enforcement authority, including the ability to issue subpoenas and assess civil penalties.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +7
Does this better protect the country from computer attacks?
The bill enhances national security by requiring reporting on AI capabilities that could accelerate offensive cyber operations.
- Scored +5
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?
The bill imposes significant new regulatory and reporting requirements on large-scale AI developers.
- Scored +5
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill grants the Secretary of Commerce significant regulatory and enforcement authority over AI developers.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill imposes new regulatory burdens and significant potential civil penalties on AI model developers.
- Scored -2
Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country?
The bill increases government oversight and information gathering regarding AI model developers.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of National Security and Public Safety: The bill establishes thresholds to identify models that pose significant risks to the national security of the United States or to public safety (Section 2(a)(1)).
-
Prevention of Cyber and Weapons Risks: Developers must report capabilities that could accelerate offensive cyber operations (Section 2(b)(2)(C)) or the development of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive weapons (Section 2(b)(2)(E)).
-
Safeguarding Against Model Misuse: The act requires reporting of behavior where models attempt to evade human oversight, deceive operators, or circumvent safeguards (Section 2(b)(2)(A)).
-
Protection of Intellectual Property and Sensitive Data: The Secretary must establish procedures to protect sensitive, classified, or security-relevant information (Section 2(d)(1)), and the submission of information does not waive trade secret protections (Section 2(d)(3)).
-
Legal Protections for Developers: To encourage reporting, the bill stipulates that submitted reports cannot be used as evidence in civil or criminal actions or administrative proceedings against the developer (Section s 2(d)(4)(A)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Financial Burden of Non-Compliance: The Secretary has the authority to assess civil penalties of up to $2,000,000 for violations of this section (Section 2(f)(2)(A)).
-
Regulatory Burden on Developers: The Secretary is tasked with creating regulations, guidelines, and reporting requirements that developers must follow (Section 2(a)(3)).
-
Potential for Unintended Government Use: While there are many restrictions, the Secretary and other agencies can still use report information to respond to, mitigate, or prevent risks to national security or public safety (Section 2(d)(4)(C)(i)).
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.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — The bill imposes significant new regulatory and reporting requirements on large-scale AI developers. Does this make patent and copyright rules fairer? — The bill explicitly protects trade secrets during the reporting process. Does this give people more control over their personal data? — The bill includes provisions to protect sensitive and security-relevant information submitted during reporting.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill grants the Secretary of Commerce significant regulatory and enforcement authority over AI developers. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires reporting to Congress regarding imminent risks to public safety. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill provides some due process through notice and hearing requirements before civil penalties are assessed.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The bill enhances national security by requiring reporting on AI capabilities that could accelerate offensive cyber operations. Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — The bill increases government oversight and information gathering regarding AI model developers.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill imposes new regulatory burdens and significant potential civil penalties on AI model developers.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The act improves safety standards which indirectly protects consumers from AI-driven harms.
- 9/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/25/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House
Sara JacobsDemocrat · California
Ted LieuDemocrat · California
George WhitesidesDemocrat · California