ai risk today logo svg bl font
Menu
SUBSCRIBE
SUBSCRIBE
ai risk today logo svg bl font
Menu

federal AI regulation

US House chamber floor with AI data network visualization overlay, for coverage of the Sectoral AI Governance Act of 2026.

Congressional Bill Would Give Federal Agencies Power to Regulate AI That Violates Existing Law

, , , , , , , , , ,

Federal agencies can now weave AI rules into existing laws and enforce compliance when AI drives violations.

 

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA-51) introduced the Sectoral AI Governance Act (H.R. 9125), giving federal agencies explicit authority to write and enforce rules when AI violates a law they already oversee. Consumer protection, employment discrimination, fair housing, financial services, and healthcare all fall within scope.

 

What the bill does

Any agency with enforcement authority over a federal law can issue rules targeting AI systems that contribute to violations of that law. A violation of those rules is enforced as a violation of the underlying federal law itself, meaning existing civil and administrative penalties apply.

The bill covers any AI or statistical system that influences a decision, across any area of federal law. The bill explicitly excludes tools that only store or transmit data.

Before issuing rules, agencies must provide 60 days’ public notice and consult the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to avoid conflicts with other agencies. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) review the technical characteristics of any AI system before the agency writes rules for it. Rules must be reviewed every three to five years and updated or dropped if the technology or the law has changed. Agencies that choose not to issue rules must publish reports to Congress every two years explaining why. Agencies that do regulate must report enforcement actions on the same schedule.

 

The bill preserves state authority to regulate AI, except where state rules directly conflict with a federal rule issued under the act.

H.R. 9125 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

OpenAI logo on a blue and orange gradient background, accompanying coverage of the company's federal AI governance blueprint published June 2, 2026.

OpenAI Calls on Congress to Build Federal AI Safety Structure, Preempting State Laws

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

The nine-page blueprint calls for mandatory pre-deployment evaluations by a strengthened federal body and a single national rule that would supersede state AI safety laws.

On June 2, OpenAI published a federal AI governance blueprint, calling on the Federal government to create a national safety structure for the most powerful AI systems. The proposal identifies three priorities: converting existing state AI safety laws into federal legislation, building out the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) as a permanent federal oversight body, and launching a coordinated federal response to AI risks across defense and civilian agencies.

 

Convert state laws into federal law

OpenAI calls its approach “reverse federalism.” The company suggests that state laws in California (SB 53), New York (RAISE Act), and Illinois (SB 315) already established a “workable consensus” on frontier AI safety requirements as a blueprint for federal legislation. OpenAI’s recommendation: Congress adopts this baseline nationally, then enacts federal law preempting state rules that cover the same ground. States would retain authority over adjacent issues including youth protection, electricity policy, and AI education, but would lose the ability to impose stricter frontier safety requirements than the federal rule.

 

CAISI as the federal oversight body

The blueprint calls for CAISI to be authorized as a permanent institution with statutory authority, reporting directly to the Commerce Secretary. Its central responsibility would be to mandate pre-deployment evaluations of the most capable AI models before public release. Developers would have to publish evaluation results and disclose how they responded.

However, if CAISI cannot complete an evaluation within a statutory deadline due to staffing, hardware, or other constraints, developers may deploy without penalty.

 

More than law and enforcement, a holistic plan

According to the blueprint, no evaluation process or oversight body can eliminate every risk. As AI grows more capable, the government needs to ensure that defensive capabilities and institutions keep pace.

The document identifies four areas of action. 

  1. Coordinate across borders. Democracies should work together on AI safety, information sharing, and threat response, with particular urgency regarding recursive self-improvement (RSI), the process by which AI accelerates its own development. 
  2. Protect US compute and semiconductor leadership. OpenAI frames both as an economic priority and a safety strategy. 
  3. Bar federal agencies from using AI systems that have not passed a recognized safety evaluation. 
  4. Invest in AI-enabled defenses against cyber and biological threats so that protective capabilities outpace offensive ones.

 

OpenAI released the blueprint one day after the White House issued an executive order on promoting AI innovation and security. Congress has not introduced companion legislation.