PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 26 - 21.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 27, 2026
Open-Source AI Leadership Act
This bill requires the Department of Commerce to assess and publish information about risks related to use of certain foreign adversary artificial intelligence (AI) models. The bill also authorizes Commerce to take specified actions to support adoption of U.S. AI models.
Specifically, the bill requires Commerce to identify, assess, and make public (as appropriate) any risk associated with the adoption and use of open AI models developed or made available by China, Iran, North Korea, or Russia, or an individual or entity subject to the control thereof. This includes risks related to the confidentiality of personal or proprietary information, the efficacy of features intended to prevent misuse of a model, or the economic or national security of the United States.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(An open AI model is an AI model (1) with model weights that are publicly released for download or distribution; or (2) that is distributed under an open license that permits use, modification, and redistribution of the model’s source code and model weights.)
Commerce must annually publish a report that assesses risks and provides information relating to the adoption, cost, and performance of foreign adversary open AI models, including a comparison with open AI models developed and made available by U.S. individuals and entities. Commerce must submit such reports to Congress.
Further, Commerce may take specified actions to support the adoption and use of open AI models developed by U.S. individuals and entities, including identifying and addressing barriers to the adoption and use of such models.
People & committees
Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 26 - 21.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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: Sep 29, 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.10152 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.10152 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.10152 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.10152 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 · 2026-08-27 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 Open-Source AI Leadership Act would direct the Commerce Secretary to support eligible open artificial intelligence (AI) models and assess risks from open models linked to countries classified as “covered nations.” It would support adoption through coordination, agreements, and policy work, and require public reports about competing models and their risks. The proposal would not itself authorize the Secretary to ban or restrict open AI models.
This Act may be cited as the Open-Source AI Leadership Act.
The Secretary shall take any of the following actions as appropriate to support the adoption and use of qualified open models in interstate and foreign commerce:
The Secretary shall identify, assess, and make publicly known, as appropriate, any risk related to the adoption and use of foreign adversary models
The term Secretary means the Secretary of Commerce.
The term foreign adversary model means an open artificial intelligence model that is developed or made available in interstate or foreign commerce by— (A) a covered nation; or (B) an entity or individual that is subject to the control of a covered nation.
Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize the Secretary to ban, restrict, or otherwise make unavailable an open artificial intelligence model in interstate or foreign commerce.
An “open” AI model would qualify under either of two definitions: its model weights—the learned numerical settings used by the model—are publicly released for download or distribution, or its license permits use, modification, and redistribution of both source code and model weights. The first route does not expressly require an open license.
The term open artificial intelligence model means an artificial intelligence model— (A) with model weights that are publicly released for download or distribution; or (B) that is distributed under an open license that permits use, modification, and redistribution of the source code and model weights of the model.
Support would focus on open models developed and made available in interstate or foreign commerce by a “U.S. person,” excluding models developed or made available by a covered nation or someone it controls. The bill defines a U.S. person using three requirements together: being domiciled in the United States, headquartered there, and organized under U.S. law.
The term qualified open model means an open artificial intelligence model that is— (A) developed and made available by a U.S. person in interstate or foreign commerce; and (B) not developed or made available by— (i) a covered nation; or (ii) an entity or individual that is subject to the control of a covered nation.
The term U.S. person means a person that— (A) is domiciled in the United States; (B) is headquartered in the United States; and (C) is organized under the laws of the United States.
The bill's “foreign adversary model” category would cover open models developed or made available by a covered nation or an entity or individual it controls. The bill refers to existing law for the definition of covered nation; it does not list those countries.
The term covered nation has the meaning given that term in section 4872(f) of title 10, United States Code.
The term foreign adversary model means an open artificial intelligence model that is developed or made available in interstate or foreign commerce by— (A) a covered nation; or (B) an entity or individual that is subject to the control of a covered nation.
The Secretary would be required to take appropriate actions to support eligible models. Listed actions include naming one coordination contact, reviewing relevant Commerce programs or powers and directing program heads to support adoption as appropriate, and identifying and addressing barriers.
The Secretary shall take any of the following actions as appropriate to support the adoption and use of qualified open models in interstate and foreign commerce:
(1) Designate a single point of contact to coordinate any effort between the Department of Commerce, any relevant private sector entity, and any other relevant stakeholder to support the adoption and use of qualified open models. (2) Review any relevant program or power of the Secretary related to the adoption and use of qualified open models and direct the head of any such program, as appropriate, to support such adoption and use. (3) Identify any barrier to the adoption and use of qualified open models and take any action as appropriate to address any such barrier.
The Secretary could enter appropriate adoption-support agreements with private entities, including startups, agencies, states, and eligible foreign partners. “State” includes U.S. territories and federally recognized Indian Tribes. Eligible foreign partners are foreign countries or political and economic unions that are not covered nations.
(4) Enter into agreements, as appropriate, to support the adoption and use of qualified open models with any of the following: (A) A private sector entity, including a startup. (B) An agency. (C) A State. (D) A qualified foreign partner.
The term qualified foreign partner means a foreign country or foreign political and economic union that is not a covered nation.
The term State means each State of the United States, the District of Columbia, each commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, and each federally recognized Indian Tribe.
Other listed support actions include developing policy and recommendations and identifying evidence-based methods to monitor adoption of both eligible open models and foreign adversary models.
(5) Develop policy and recommendations to facilitate the adoption and use of qualified open models. (6) Identify any relevant evidence-based approach, best practice, framework, benchmark, or other method, as appropriate, to monitor the adoption and use of qualified open models and foreign adversary models.
The Secretary would identify, assess, and disclose risks from foreign adversary models as appropriate. The assessment would cover model training, including unauthorized use of another AI model, and risks to the privacy, accuracy, and availability of personal and proprietary information, including access by covered nations or people or entities they control. These are required subjects for assessment, not findings that such harms have occurred.
The Secretary shall identify, assess, and make publicly known, as appropriate, any risk related to the adoption and use of foreign adversary models, including any risk related to the following: (1) The training of a foreign adversary model, including any risk related to a covered nation, or an entity or individual that is subject to the control of a covered nation, conducting any such training through any unauthorized use of an artificial intelligence model. (2) The confidentiality, integrity, and accessibility of personal and proprietary information, including any risk of access to such information by a covered nation or an entity or individual that is subject to the control of a covered nation.
Risk assessments would also address the security and resilience of organizations using these models and their supply chains; model outputs concerning historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and freedom of expression; and whether safeguards against misuse or exploitation work.
(3) The security and resiliency of any organization that uses or adopts a foreign adversary model and any risk that may result to the supply chain of such organization as a result of any such use or adoption. (4) Any output of a foreign adversary model, including with respect to historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and freedom of expression. (5) The efficacy, or lack thereof, of any feature of a foreign adversary model intended to prevent misuse or exploitation of such model, including any safety or security feature intended to prevent any such misuse or exploitation.
The assessment would include risks involving chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear capabilities and similar risks to U.S. national and economic security.
(6) The development and use of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear capabilities, or any other similar risk related to the national security and economic security of the United States.
Within 18 months after enactment, and annually afterward, the Secretary would publish an online report assessing identified risks. Reports would describe adoption of leading foreign adversary models and their cost, capability, and performance, and compare that information with available information about eligible open models.
(b) Publication Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall publish on a publicly facing website a report that assesses any risk related to a foreign adversary model identified and assessed under subsection (a) and information relating to the following: (1) An overview of the adoption and use of leading foreign adversary models. (2) The cost, capability, and performance of foreign adversary models. (3) A comparison between the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) relating to foreign adversary models and such information, as available, relating to qualified open models.
The Secretary would send each published report to the specified House and Senate committees within 30 days. The public-report requirement would end 10 years after enactment; the sunset clause applies to that requirement, rather than the entire bill.
(c) Report to Congress Not later than 30 days after the publication of a report under subsection (b), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate the report. (d) Sunset The requirement described in subsection (b) does not apply beginning on the date that is 10 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The bill expressly would not authorize the Secretary to ban, restrict, or make an open AI model unavailable in interstate or foreign commerce. This limits authority under this bill; it does not state that restrictions under other laws are prohibited.
Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize the Secretary to ban, restrict, or otherwise make unavailable an open artificial intelligence model in interstate or foreign commerce.
The supplied September 29, 2026 source snapshot records introduction and referral to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee on August 27. It records subcommittee consideration and forwarding to the full committee by voice vote on September 1, followed by committee consideration and an order to report the bill by a 26–21 vote on September 16. An order to report is a committee action, not enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-29T14:50:06Z. 2026-09-16: Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 26 - 21. 2026-09-16: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held 2026-09-01: Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote. 2026-09-01: Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held 2026-08-27: Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. 2026-08-27: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2026-08-27: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-27. 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 rider attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
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 a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish formal earmark status or 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 exception beyond the program's intended coverage was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 29, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI