Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act of 2026
A bill from an independent
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
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 creates a new executive department called the Department of Artificial Intelligence to regulate advanced artificial intelligence systems and protect the public from dangers. It establishes a Secretary of Artificial Intelligence and an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Board to provide technical advice and oversee the rules. The legislation puts a mandatory pause on training, modifying, or deploying advanced artificial intelligence systems until the Department is fully staffed and creates safety rules. It strictly prohibits artificial superintelligence and systems with superintelligence precursor characteristics, requiring the government to destroy violating systems. Furthermore, the bill institutes a charter system for developers, outlines severe criminal and civil penalties for violations, and protects whistleblowers from retaliation.
Yes· 3 of 16
- Scored +9
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?
The bill establishes rigorous federal oversight, mandatory charters, safety audits, and deployment approvals for advanced artificial intelligence developers.
- Scored +8
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill establishes an entirely new executive department with broad regulatory, inspection, and enforcement authority over artificial intelligence.
- Scored +6
Does this better protect the country from computer attacks?
The legislation allows federal funding for defensive cybersecurity research utilizing specific artificial intelligence capabilities.
The opposite· 3 of 10
- Scored -7
Does this shorten or soften prison sentences?
The bill establishes severe criminal penalties including up to 20 years of imprisonment for reckless violations of artificial intelligence regulations.
- Scored -5
Is this likely to grow the economy?
Imposing a mandatory pause and severe restrictions on advanced artificial intelligence development may slow innovation and industry growth.
- Scored -4
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Asset forfeiture and severe penalties upon charter revocation raise concerns regarding standard protections and administrative overreach.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection Against Catastrophic Risks: Section 4(b) and Section 9 establish the Department of Artificial Intelligence and prohibit artificial superintelligence and dangerous systems, which aims to protect the public from existential threats and severe harm.
-
Whistleblower Protections: Section 14 protects employees, former employees, and independent contractors from retaliation if they report violations of the Act to the Department, law enforcement, or Congress.
-
Safety Oversight and Audits: Section 8(c) requires entities developing artificial intelligence to report pre-development plans, undergo monitoring and safety audits, and receive final pre-deployment approval before releasing systems to the public.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Severe Criminal Penalties: Section 13(b) states that a policymaking individual or rogue actor who recklessly violates the Act or its rules can be fined and imprisoned for up to 20 years.
-
Asset Forfeiture: Section 12(d)(2) and Section 13(d)(4) require individuals and companies to forfeit their intellectual property and assets to the Federal Government if their charter is revoked for a violation.
-
Employment Bans: Section 13(c)(1) mandates that non-polymaking individuals who recklessly violate the Act or its rules will be barred from employment in the artificial intelligence industry for 10 years.
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.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The legislation allows federal funding for defensive cybersecurity research utilizing specific artificial intelligence capabilities. Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — Section 15 directs the Secretary to pursue international agreements and allied coordination to prevent artificial superintelligence globally.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill establishes an entirely new executive department with broad regulatory, inspection, and enforcement authority over artificial intelligence. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill institutes mandatory pre-development reporting and disclosure requirements for discovered superintelligence characteristics. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Asset forfeiture and severe penalties upon charter revocation raise concerns regarding standard protections and administrative overreach.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — Prohibiting artificial superintelligence and dangerous systems aims to protect the long-term future and safety of younger generations. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Risk mitigation rules help protect the broader population from severe societal disruptions caused by unchecked artificial intelligence. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Preventing catastrophic disruptions to electrical grids and critical infrastructure particularly benefits rural communities reliant on stable utilities. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Protections against systemic infrastructure sabotage safeguard vulnerable populations who rely on stable public grids and financial networks. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — National security and public safety protections indirectly benefit veterans by preserving overall national stability. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Safeguarding the public from existential and catastrophic technological risks benefits all citizens, including young adults. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Preventing economic collapse or widespread infrastructure failure protects economically vulnerable households from cascading crises. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Ensuring safe artificial intelligence deployment protects critical societal systems upon which middle-class stability depends. Would students be better off under this? — Long-term existential risk reduction creates a safer environment for students planning their futures. Would union members be better off under this? — Strong whistleblower protections in Section 14 provide robust safeguards for employees reporting violations. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Leaders and primary financiers of major artificial intelligence labs face direct prohibitions, mandatory development pauses, and harsh penalties for violations. Would business owners be better off under this? — Artificial intelligence developers and industry business owners face stringent charter requirements, mandatory pauses, and potential asset seizure for non-compliance. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Wealthy investors in advanced technology sectors face significant financial risks due to strict liability, asset forfeiture, and regulatory bans. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Venture capitalists and ultra-high-net-worth backers of frontier artificial intelligence companies face heavy regulatory restrictions and forfeiture risks. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income investors and executives in the artificial intelligence sector face strict operational pauses, asset forfeiture, and severe criminal liabilities.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill creates a new executive department, which will increase administrative spending rather than reduce it. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Imposing a mandatory pause and severe restrictions on advanced artificial intelligence development may slow innovation and industry growth. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Strict charter requirements, monitoring, and compliance mandates create heavy burdens that can hinder small artificial intelligence developers.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this shorten or soften prison sentences? — The bill establishes severe criminal penalties including up to 20 years of imprisonment for reckless violations of artificial intelligence regulations.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — The bill establishes rigorous federal oversight, mandatory charters, safety audits, and deployment approvals for advanced artificial intelligence developers. Does this put more money into scientific research? — Mandatory pauses on advanced artificial intelligence training and development effectively restrict certain areas of ongoing scientific research.
- 9/23/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- Introduced in Senate
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.