A Republican bill with 6 Democratic cosponsors · See all 11 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 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, known as the FRONTIER Act, sets up a system for federal oversight of the development and deployment of powerful artificial intelligence models. It requires large AI developers to publish safety frameworks, report critical safety incidents, and undergo regular third-party audits and independent verification. The legislation gives the Department of Commerce the power to issue emergency orders if an AI model presents an imminent catastrophic risk to the public. It also establishes civil and criminal penalties for companies that break these rules and prevents states from passing conflicting local laws on these specific safety areas.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +8
Does this better protect the country from computer attacks?
The bill directly addresses the mitigation of catastrophic cyber risks associated with frontier AI models.
- Scored +7
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?
The bill significantly increases regulation for large frontier AI developers through frameworks and audits.
- Scored +6
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill expands federal authority through a new oversight regime and emergency order powers over AI development.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill includes preemption provisions that limit the ability of states to regulate frontier AI developers.
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill imposes new compliance costs, civil penalties, and regulatory burdens on large AI developers.
- Scored -2
Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country?
The bill establishes federal oversight and reporting that could be viewed as a form of domestic technical surveillance.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Public Safety Protections: Under Section 4 and Section 8, the government can step in and stop companies from deploying dangerous AI models that could cause mass casualties, severe injuries, or massive property damage. This protects everyday citizens from extreme, foreseeable risks like rogue cyberattacks or the assistance of dangerous weapons.
-
Transparency and Accountability: Section 4 requires large developers to clearly publish their safety frameworks and transparency reports before releasing new models. This ensures that the public and elected officials can hold these major tech companies accountable for their actions and safety practices.
-
Independent Safety Checks: Section 5 requires very large AI developers to use licensed independent verification organizations to continuously monitor and assess their risk practices. This brings in outside experts to double-check that developers are actually keeping their systems safe rather than just grading their own homework.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Higher Costs and Reduced Competition: The heavy regulations, registration fees, and mandatory independent audits required under Section 4 and Section 5 could create massive financial burdens for companies. This might make it very hard for smaller startups to compete against massive tech corporations, potentially reducing choices for the public.
-
Limited State-Level Protections: Section 9 blocks states from passing their own laws regarding AI risk transparency, third-party auditing, and incident reporting. This means local communities and state elected officials cannot enact stricter rules to protect their residents if they feel the federal government's approach is not enough.
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 significantly increases regulation for large frontier AI developers through frameworks and audits.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The bill directly addresses the mitigation of catastrophic cyber risks associated with frontier AI models. Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — The bill establishes federal oversight and reporting that could be viewed as a form of domestic technical surveillance.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill enhances consumer protection by mandating transparency and safety frameworks for frontier AI models.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal authority through a new oversight regime and emergency order powers over AI development. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates transparency through public reporting of AI frameworks and safety incidents. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill includes preemption provisions that limit the ability of states to regulate frontier AI developers.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill imposes new compliance costs, civil penalties, and regulatory burdens on large AI developers.
- 10/1/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/21/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/16/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/23/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 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.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
J. CorreaDemocrat · California
Scott FranklinRepublican · Florida
James GallagherRepublican · California
Erin HouchinRepublican · Indiana
Nicole MalliotakisRepublican · New York
Scott PetersDemocrat · California
Mike QuigleyDemocrat · Illinois
Suhas SubramanyamDemocrat · Virginia
Lori TrahanDemocrat · Massachusetts
Gabe VasquezDemocrat · New Mexico
Joe WilsonRepublican · South Carolina