A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
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 directs the Office of Management and Budget and federal agencies to be transparent when using automated systems and artificial intelligence to interact with the public or make critical decisions. It requires agencies to publish public inventories of their automated processes and provide clear notices to individuals when artificial intelligence is used. The legislation establishes appeal processes for adverse decisions made by automated systems and gives people the right to request human reviews. It also regulates how federal agencies procure and use third-party artificial intelligence tools like chatbots, prohibiting commercial uses of collected data. Finally, the bill includes provisions requiring agencies to provide transcripts of interactions with AI tools and sets a sunset date of ten years after the guidance is issued.
Yes· 3 of 26
- Scored +9
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The legislation requires federal agencies to publish public inventories of automated systems, provide transparent notices, and make performance metrics publicly available.
- Scored +8
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill institutes mandatory appeal processes and human review options for individuals subject to adverse decisions made by automated systems.
- Scored +8
Does this give people more control over their personal data?
The bill establishes strict prohibitions on third-party vendors using collected data for commercial profiling or targeted advertising, greatly enhancing personal data privacy.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Right to Appeal Adverse Decisions: Section 3(b)(7) requires agencies to establish a process for individuals subject to adverse decisions made by automated systems to appeal and receive timely recourse, which includes publishing the appeals process and providing a tracking system. This is a positive step to hold officials accountable and ensure people have a fair way to challenge automated errors.
-
Human Review Option: Section 3(b)(9)(A) gives individuals the opportunity for an alternative review by a human being working for the agency regarding any critical decision made by an automated process. This protects people from being entirely at the mercy of a machine when critical life decisions are made.
-
Clear Notice of AI Interactions: Section 3(c)(3) requires agencies to provide prompt, plain-language notices when individuals are interacting with artificial intelligence systems like chatbots or automated voice agents. This ensures people are not tricked into thinking they are talking to a human employee.
-
Protection of Personal Data: Section 3(f) prohibits contractors or third-party vendors from using data collected under this Act to deliver advertisements or build commercial profiles on individuals. This protects personal privacy and prevents private companies from exploiting citizens' data gathered through government interactions.
-
No Forced Commercial Accounts: Section 3(g) states that agencies cannot require a member of the public to create an account with a private or commercial entity as a condition of receiving federal benefits or customer support. This prevents forcing citizens to sign up for commercial platforms just to access government services.
-
Access to Interaction Transcripts: Section 3(i) allows individuals to immediately download, email, or request within three business days a complete transcript or recording of their interactions with an agency's artificial intelligence system. This gives people a clear record of what was communicated.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- There are no specific sections or provisions within the provided text that explicitly create negative consequences, burdens, or harms for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
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 immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrants navigating immigration and asylum services are explicitly protected by provisions ensuring fair review, human alternatives, and plain-language notices. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income individuals relying on public assistance programs gain critical appeal rights, human reviews, and protections against algorithmic errors. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill explicitly mandates that plain-language requirements accommodate individuals with disabilities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill's focus on accessible plain-language notices and language considerations benefits non-native English speakers. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households interacting with federal agencies benefit from robust privacy safeguards, data request rights, and clear AI disclosures. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees utilizing government benefits gain secure interactions, data protections, and clear paths to escalate issues to human agents. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors relying on federal assistance or healthcare programs receive enhanced protections, plain-language notices, and straightforward access to human review. Would students be better off under this? — Students interacting with federal educational programs or vocational training assistance benefit from transparent automated decision processes. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans seeking benefits and services are protected by strict oversight, clear notices, and appeal rights concerning agency AI tools. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Enhanced transparency and appeal mechanisms help safeguard minority communities from biased or discriminatory automated decision-making. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Asian Americans interacting with federal agencies benefit from improved algorithmic transparency and language tracking metrics. Would children be better off under this? — Children and families relying on federal programs benefit from increased transparency and fairness in automated agency decisions. Would men be better off under this? — Men interacting with federal automated systems are granted robust data protection and human review options. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged individuals are protected from commercial exploitation of data and given clearer channels for appealing automated government decisions. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Native Americans utilizing federal programs gain better protections and recourse options against automated government errors. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents relying on remote communication with federal agencies benefit from clear chatbot guidelines and access to human support. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents dealing with federal programs and utility access benefit from comprehensive algorithmic transparency and consumer protections. Would white Americans be better off under this? — All citizens benefit equally from increased transparency, due process, and data privacy protections regarding federal automated systems. Would women be better off under this? — Women utilizing federal services benefit from stronger privacy standards and clear avenues to challenge automated adverse decisions. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults interacting with federal services benefit from clear notices, data privacy protections, and appeal rights regarding automated systems.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation requires federal agencies to publish public inventories of automated systems, provide transparent notices, and make performance metrics publicly available. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill institutes mandatory appeal processes and human review options for individuals subject to adverse decisions made by automated systems. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill directs the Office of Management and Budget to issue government-wide guidance and oversee agency implementation of automated systems transparency.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — The bill establishes strict prohibitions on third-party vendors using collected data for commercial profiling or targeted advertising, greatly enhancing personal data privacy.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill provides strong consumer protections by requiring clear notice of AI interactions, prohibiting commercial use of collected data, and ensuring options for human review.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The legislation mandates that plain language requirements cater specifically to audiences that may be disabled or disadvantaged.
- 9/30/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
James LankfordRepublican · Oklahoma