Robert Latta (R-OH)
Collaboration on Adversarial Threats and Security Risks Act
A Republican bill with 15 Democratic cosponsors · See all 25 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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, known as the "Collaboration on Adversarial Threats and Security Risks Act," establishes an antitrust exemption for certain activities related to artificial intelligence. It allows non-Federal entities to exchange information or coordinate actions to address specific artificial intelligence security risks. These risks include threats involving national security, chemical or biological weapons, or disruptions to critical infrastructure. Entities may coordinate to delay or limit the development or release of AI, provided they give written notice to the Assistant Attorney General. The act provides an affirmative defense for such actions under antitrust laws, provided they are done in good faith and for an exclusive security purpose.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +7
Does this better protect the country from computer attacks?
Prevents AI from being weaponized for offensive cyber attacks and protects against theft by covered nations.
- Scored +5
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Primarily benefits owners of the largest AI frontier model companies by allowing coordination without antitrust penalties.
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Provides legal protection from antitrust lawsuits when collaborating on AI security.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -6
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Specifically exempts information regarding AI release delays from public disclosure.
- Scored -4
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?
Provides an antitrust exemption for large AI entities, reducing the likelihood of regulatory action against their collaboration.
- Scored -2
Is this likely to grow the economy?
Potential limits on AI development and release could slow economic growth in the tech sector.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Risk Mitigation Through Cooperation: The bill allows two or more non-Federal entities to exchange information or assistance regarding "covered artificial intelligence security risks" (Section 3(a)(1)). This could help protect against threats such as the theft or weaponization of AI by covered nations, the development of weapons, or disruptions to critical infrastructure (Section 2(6)).
-
Controlled AI Deployment: Entities can coordinate to reduce risks by delaying or limiting the release, deployment, or development of artificial intelligence (Section 3(a)(2)). This requires the entity to provide written notice to the Assistant Attorney General detailing the specific risk (Section 3(a)(2)).
-
Protection of Sensitive Information: Information submitted to the Assistant Attorney General regarding proposed restrictions is deemed voluntarily shared and is withheld from the public (Section 3(e)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Burden of Proof on Entities: If an entity uses the antitrust exemption, they bear the burden of proving by a "preponderance of the evidence" that their actions were taken in good faith and for the exclusive security purpose intended (Section 3(c)).
-
Risk of Increased Security Threats: The Attorney General can seek an injunction against these coordinated actions if it is demonstrated that the actions are "reasonably likely to result in an overall increase in covered artificial intelligence security risks" (Section 4(b)(2)).
-
Strict Limitations on Information Use: A non-Federal entity receiving information or assistance must implement "reasonable internal controls" to ensure that the information is not used for any purpose other than the specific security purpose intended (Section 3(b)).
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would billionaires be better off under this? — Primarily benefits owners of the largest AI frontier model companies by allowing coordination without antitrust penalties. Would business owners be better off under this? — Provides legal protection from antitrust lawsuits when collaborating on AI security.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — Prevents AI from being weaponized for offensive cyber attacks and protects against theft by covered nations.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — Provides an antitrust exemption for large AI entities, reducing the likelihood of regulatory action against their collaboration.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Gives the Assistant Attorney General oversight of coordinated AI release delays. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Specifically exempts information regarding AI release delays from public disclosure.
- Healthcare
- Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak? — Prevents AI from being used to facilitate the development of biological weapons.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Protects consumers by mitigating catastrophic AI risks and safeguarding critical infrastructure. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Potential limits on AI development and release could slow economic growth in the tech sector. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The antitrust exemption primarily benefits large AI developers who can coordinate to limit release, potentially hindering smaller competitors.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect what people are allowed to say in public life? — Limited transparency and coordinated delays in AI release may indirectly affect the flow of information.
- 10/15/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 9/16/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/14/2026
- 6 Cosponsors added.
- 9/8/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/31/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/23/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 8 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Earl CarterRepublican · Georgia
J. CorreaDemocrat · California
Ben ClineRepublican · Virginia
Jasmine CrockettDemocrat · Texas
Bill FosterDemocrat · Illinois
Bill HuizengaRepublican · Michigan
Chrissy HoulahanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Wesley HuntRepublican · Texas
Pat HarriganRepublican · North Carolina
Darrell IssaRepublican · California
Sara JacobsDemocrat · California
Raja KrishnamoorthiDemocrat · Illinois
Ted LieuDemocrat · California
Sam LiccardoDemocrat · California
Seth MoultonDemocrat · Massachusetts
Mariannette Miller-MeeksRepublican · Iowa
Nathaniel MoranRepublican · Texas
April McClain DelaneyDemocrat · Maryland
Jay ObernolteRepublican · California
Brad ShermanDemocrat · California
Lori TrahanDemocrat · Massachusetts
Jill TokudaDemocrat · Hawaii
Marc VeaseyDemocrat · Texas
Randy WeberRepublican · Texas
George WhitesidesDemocrat · California