PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Whitesides, George [D-CA-27] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10042 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10042 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10042 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10042 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Understanding AI in the Classroom Act would require the National Science Foundation to hold workshops to identify gaps in research about how classroom artificial intelligence affects children. The review would cover learning, development, and children's reliance on AI, including whether effects differ among children. The foundation's director would then publish a report and submit it to two congressional committees.
This Act may be cited as the Understanding AI in the Classroom Act.
the Director shall complete workshops to identify any gaps in relevant data and published findings related to any effect on or harm to children as a result of the integration of artificial intelligence into classrooms
(1) The attention span and learning independence of children. (2) The cognitive, social, emotional, or behavioral development of children. (3) Any over-reliance or trust miscalibration on artificial intelligence by children. (4) Any differential effect on children
the Director shall submit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and publish, a report that includes information related to any gaps identified under such subsection.
The term Director means the Director of the National Science Foundation.
If enacted, the bill would require the National Science Foundation director to complete the workshops within 18 months after enactment. Their task would be to identify gaps in existing data and published findings about classroom AI's effects on children, including possible harm.
Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall complete workshops to identify any gaps in relevant data and published findings related to any effect on or harm to children as a result of the integration of artificial intelligence into classrooms
The term Director means the Director of the National Science Foundation.
The workshops would cover attention span, independent learning, and children's thinking, social, emotional, and behavioral development. They would also examine excessive reliance on AI or trust that does not match its reliability, and differences associated with age, vulnerabilities, or AI characteristics—including sycophancy, meaning excessive agreement or flattery.
(1) The attention span and learning independence of children. (2) The cognitive, social, emotional, or behavioral development of children. (3) Any over-reliance or trust miscalibration on artificial intelligence by children. (4) Any differential effect on children based on the following: (A) Age. (B) Any vulnerability that may impact children. (C) Any characteristic of such artificial intelligence, including sycophancy.
The director could seek participation from researchers, educators, school leaders, parent groups, and anyone else the director considers appropriate. Seeking their participation would be permitted, not required.
(b) Participation In carrying out subsection (a), the Director may seek the participation of the following: (1) Researchers. (2) Educators. (3) School leaders. (4) Parent groups. (5) Any other person the Director determines appropriate.
Within six months after completing the workshops, the director would have to publish a report on any identified research gaps and submit it to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
(c) Report Not later than 6 months after the Director completes the workshops described in subsection (a), the Director shall submit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and publish, a report that includes information related to any gaps identified under such subsection.
The bill would use existing statutory definitions of “artificial intelligence” and “child.” Those definitions are referenced rather than reproduced in the supplied text.
(1) Artificial intelligence The term artificial intelligence has the meaning given the term in section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (15 U.S.C. 9401). (2) Child The term child has the meaning given the term in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
The supplied action snapshot, updated August 12, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on August 3, 2026. It does not establish the bill's status after that snapshot.
Source snapshot updated 2026-08-12T20:23:32Z. 2026-08-03: Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 2026-08-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Aug 12, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI