Sectoral AI Governance Act of 2026

[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>