HouseH.R. 9125119th Congress
Sectoral AI Governance Act of 2026
Full Text
Official text as published. Use Ctrl+F / Cmd+F to search within the document.
[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9125 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
119th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 9125
To authorize the head of agencies to issue rules related to the uses of
algorithmic decision-making systems that are likely to materially
contribute to violations of Federal laws that the agency is authorized
to enforce, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 3, 2026
Ms. Jacobs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, 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
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To authorize the head of agencies to issue rules related to the uses of
algorithmic decision-making systems that are likely to materially
contribute to violations of Federal laws that the agency is authorized
to enforce, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Sectoral AI Governance Act of
2026''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Existing Federal laws may already prohibit certain
harmful uses of algorithmic decision-making systems. However,
uncertainty regarding the scope and application of existing
authorities to such systems, and variation in agency procedures
and approaches may impede clear and coordinated regulation.
(2) Agencies may benefit from clearer authority, consistent
with their existing enforcement mandates, to issue prospective
rules governing uses of algorithmic decision-making systems
that are likely to materially contribute to violations of
Federal law.
(3) A coordinated framework for consultation, guidance, and
reporting may improve transparency, consistency, coordination,
and accountability across agencies.
SEC. 3. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY RELATED TO THE USE OF ALGORITHMIC
DECISION-MAKING SYSTEMS.
(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--The head of each agency that is authorized
to enforce a Federal law is authorized to make rules (in
accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code,
notwithstanding any rulemaking procedures that are otherwise
applicable to the agency) to regulate the use of algorithmic
decision-making systems--
(A) if the head of the agency determines, based on
evidence that is available to the agency, that the use
of such a system is likely to materially contribute to
violations of the Federal law; and
(B) for the purpose of mitigating such violations.
(2) Enforcement.--A violation of a rule made under this
subsection shall be treated as a violation of the Federal law
described in paragraph (1) for purposes of administrative and
civil enforcement of such law by the agency.
(3) Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), not later than 60 days prior to issuing a notice
of proposed rulemaking with respect to a rulemaking
under this subsection, the head of an agency shall
publish an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to
solicit public comment on whether the use of the
algorithmic decision-making system that the agency
proposes to regulate is likely to materially contribute
to violations of the Federal law that the agency is
authorized to enforce. An advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking issued under this subparagraph shall, as
appropriate, describe--
(i) the algorithmic decision-making system
or category of systems at issue;
(ii) the provisions of Federal law
implicated; and
(iii) the types of information, evidence,
and public comment sought by the agency.
(B) Exception.--The requirement under subparagraph
(A) shall not apply if the head of the agency
determines that--
(i) the record of a rulemaking initiated
prior to the date of enactment of this Act; or
(ii) a prior advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking issued pursuant to this Act,
is sufficient to support a notice of proposed
rulemaking under section 553 of title 5, United States
Code, with respect to the rulemaking under this
section.
(b) Consultation and Coordination During Rulemaking.--
(1) Preliminary consultation.--
(A) In general.--Prior to issuing a notice of
proposed rulemaking with respect to a rulemaking under
this subsection, the head of an agency shall, as
appropriate, consult with the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on any
reasonably foreseeable overlap, inconsistency, or
conflict of the proposed rule with any other rule or
proposed rule of another agency to regulate an
algorithmic decision-making system under this section.
(B) Summary.--If the head of the agency proceeds
with a rulemaking under this section, the head of the
agency shall include a summary of the consultation
under this paragraph in the notice of proposed
rulemaking.
(2) Technical consultation.--The head of an agency that is
making a rule under subsection (a) shall--
(A) consult, as appropriate, with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology on the technical
characteristics, evaluation, and governance of an
algorithmic decision-making system that the agency
seeks to regulate in its rule; and
(B) include in the rulemaking record a summary of
any consultation conducted under this paragraph.
(3) Coordination.--The head of each agency shall, to the
extent practicable, coordinate with the heads of other agencies
to ensure that rules made under subsection (a) do not impose
conflicting requirements regarding the use of algorithmic
decision-making systems.
(c) Mitigation of Disruption of Benefits.--The head of an agency
that is making a rule under subsection (a) shall, in making such rule,
consider whether the use of the algorithmic decision-making system
occurs in connection with the administration of a Government service or
public benefit, including by a contractor or service provider, and,
where practicable, shall seek to mitigate unnecessary adverse effects
of the rule on the delivery, accessibility, timeliness, integrity, or
continuity of such service or benefit.
(d) Guidance.--The Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
acting through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and in
consultation with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, shall issue guidance to resolve conflicts and ensure
consistency across agencies regarding the rulemaking authority under
subsection (a).
(e) Periodic Review.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after promulgating
a rule under subsection (a), and thereafter at intervals
determined appropriate by the head of the agency (but not less
frequently than once every 5 years), the head of an agency
shall review the rule to assess whether, due to technological
developments or changes in the use of algorithmic decision-
making systems, maintaining the rule is appropriate and that
the rule is appropriately tailored to mitigate violations of
the Federal law the agency is authorized to enforce.
(2) Repeal and amendment of rules.--The head of the agency
shall repeal or amend any rule that is determined to be
inappropriate to maintain or not appropriately tailored to
mitigate violations of the Federal law the agency is authorized
to enforce.
(f) Biennial Report.--
(1) Agencies that engaged in rulemaking.--Not later than 2
years after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 2
years thereafter, the head of each agency that has engaged in a
rulemaking pursuant to the authority under subsection (a)
during the 2-year period preceding the submission of the report
shall submit to Congress, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, and the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, and make publicly available, a
report on such rulemaking, including--
(A) a description of the rulemaking;
(B) the use of an algorithmic decision-making
system the agency determined was likely to materially
contribute to violations of the Federal law that the
agency was authorized to enforce that the agency sought
to mitigate through the rulemaking;
(C) hiring and staffing actions undertaken by the
agency to support the rulemaking;
(D) challenges encountered by the agency related to
such rulemaking;
(E) additional personnel and resources needed to
support the use of the rulemaking authority under
subsection (a);
(F) a summary of enforcement actions taken by
agencies pursuant to a rule made using the authority
under subsection (a), including--
(i) the general categories of violations
for which enforcement actions were taken; and
(ii) the types and aggregate ranges of
penalties or remedies assessed;
(G) how the rule will regulate an algorithmic
decision-making system to prevent violations of the
Federal law that the agency is authorized to enforce;
(H) a summary of comments, evidence, or technical
assessments received regarding potential disparate
impacts or other discriminatory effects associated with
the use of the algorithmic decision-making system, and
how the agency considered such information in
connection with the Federal law the agency is
authorized to enforce;
(I) in the case of a rule that was repealed or
amended pursuant to subsection (e), a summary of the
review conducted under such subsection; and
(J) a summary of any overlap, inconsistency, or
conflict with any other rule or proposed rule of
another agency identified during consultation or
coordination under subsection (b), and how such
overlap, inconsistency, or conflict was addressed or
resolved.
(2) Certain agencies that have not engaged in rulemaking.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, and every 2 years
thereafter, the head of each agency described in
subparagraph (B) shall submit to Congress, the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget, and the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, and make publicly available, a report on--
(i) the uses of an algorithmic decision-
making system that the agency identified are
likely to materially contribute to violations
of the Federal laws that the agency is
authorized to enforce; and
(ii) the factors the agency considered and
information on which the agency relied in
making the determination not to engage in a
rulemaking pursuant to the authority under
subsection (a), including any other available
mechanisms used by the agency to mitigate the
violations of the Federal laws that the agency
is authorized to enforce, and a summary of any
technical assessment relied upon by the agency
in making such determination.
(B) Agency described.--An agency is described in
this subparagraph if the agency--
(i) determined, during the 2-year period
preceding the submission of the report, that
the use of an algorithmic decision-making
system is likely to materially contribute to
violations of a Federal law that the agency is
authorized to enforce; and
(ii) did not engage in a rulemaking
pursuant to the authority under subsection (a).
(g) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Algorithmic decision-making system.--The term
``algorithmic decision-making system'' means a computational
process integrated into software or hardware, including a
process based on statistics, machine learning, artificial
intelligence, or any other data processing technique, that--
(A) is used--
(i) to make or execute a decision; or
(ii) to assist in making or executing a
decision, if such process is capable of
altering the outcome of the decision; and
(B) is not passive computing infrastructure.
(2) Authority to enforce.--The term ``authority to
enforce'' means, with respect to an agency--
(A) authority to issue sanctions (as defined in
section 551 of title 5, United States Code) in response
to a violation of Federal law or regulation; or
(B) the legal authority to bring an action in
Federal court to seek a penalty or injunction to remedy
a violation of Federal law or regulation.
(3) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given such
term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(4) Materially contribute.--The term ``materially
contribute'' means, with respect to a violation of Federal law,
to play a significant role in bringing about or enabling such
violation, including by assisting or facilitating conduct that
results in the violation, but not including minimal or
incidental support that is unrelated to the violation.
(5) Artificial intelligence.--The term ``artificial
intelligence'' has the meaning given such term in section 5002
of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020
(15 U.S.C. 9401).
(6) Passive computing infrastructure.--The term ``passive
computing infrastructure'' means any intermediary technology
that does not influence or determine the outcome of a decision,
make or aid in a decision (including through evaluations,
metrics, or scoring), inform policy implementation, or collect
data or observations, including web hosting, domain
registration, networking, caching, data storage, or
cybersecurity.
(h) Non-Preemption.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
preempt or limit the authority of a State to regulate the use of an
algorithmic decision-making system, except to the extent that the
regulation of such system by a State is in conflict with this Act or a
rule issued under this Act.
<all>