H.R. 10484House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

Covered AI Prohibition Act

Sponsored byDon BaconR-NE-2Introduced Sep 17, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 17, 2026) — on Armed Services.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

19 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
nell.ferreiraDemoNC-6voted Yea16d ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
9
clay_commuterDemoCA-7voted Nay19d ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
5
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay19d ago
Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.
9
m.kowalczykDemoLA-1voted Nay19d ago
2 sections is worth knowing before anyone argues about the title. Whatever this is, it isn't small.
9
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay19d ago
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
8
aviva_sternDemoMO-2voted Nay17d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
7
hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Nay20d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
6
publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Nay16d ago
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
4
nell.ferreiraDemoNC-6voted Yea16d ago
The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
3
delta_dawn_laDemoHI-2voted Yea16d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
3
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Yea17d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
5
nadia.hartleyDemoNV-2voted Yea17d ago
That's the part I can't get past either — broad authority, thin guardrails.
2
greta.vasquezDemoFL-3voted Yea18d ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
2
j_okonkwoDemoNC-14voted Nay18d ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. None of that is settled by the summary.
2
nadia.hartleyDemoNV-2voted Yea18d ago
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
1
hollow_commuterDemoIA-2voted Nay16d ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
1
NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-12voted Nay17d ago
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
1
TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Nay20d ago
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
1
aviva_sternDemoMO-2voted Nay20d ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
Your position on H.R. 10484100% Yea · 1 VoteWire user