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: Oct 16, 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.10180 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.10180 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.10180 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.10180 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 Self-Improving AI Monitoring Act would add assessments of how artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities might contribute to scientific breakthroughs, including by developing AI itself. It would also set conditions for agreements to evaluate certain AI systems before deployment. Those agreements would require developers to disclose, upon request, how AI helped develop the system, and evaluations would examine the system’s ability to research or develop AI autonomously.
This Act may be cited as the Self-Improving AI Monitoring Act.
assess, based on the information, if any, disclosed pursuant to subsection (h)(1) and other information, trends regarding the capabilities of artificial intelligence systems, including such a capability to autonomously facilitate or conduct research on or development of an artificial intelligence system, that might contribute to scientific research and development breakthroughs.
Such memorandum includes a requirement for such developer, in carrying out such evaluation, to disclose to the Director upon request of the Director information relating to the extent to which an artificial intelligence system was utilized to facilitate or conduct research on or development of such frontier artificial intelligence system
Such evaluation includes an evaluation of the capabilities, if any, of such frontier artificial intelligence system to autonomously facilitate or conduct research on or development of an artificial intelligence system.
Section 2 would amend the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to add an assessment of trends in AI capabilities that might contribute to scientific research and development breakthroughs. The assessment would use any information disclosed under the new agreement requirements and other information. This describes a subject for assessment, not a finding that breakthroughs will occur.
Section 22A of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278h–1) is amended
assess, based on the information, if any, disclosed pursuant to subsection (h)(1) and other information, trends regarding the capabilities of artificial intelligence systems, including such a capability to autonomously facilitate or conduct research on or development of an artificial intelligence system, that might contribute to scientific research and development breakthroughs.
The Director could enter a memorandum of understanding—an agreement—with a developer to evaluate a frontier AI system before deployment only if the new disclosure and evaluation conditions were met. The Director would determine which systems count as frontier AI. This provision sets conditions on those agreements; it does not require every developer to enter one.
In carrying out subsection (b), the Director may not enter into with the developer of a frontier artificial intelligence system (as determined by the Director) a memorandum of understanding to conduct pre-deployment evaluation of such frontier artificial intelligence system unless the following requirements are satisfied:
Each covered agreement would have to require the developer, while carrying out the evaluation, to disclose information when the Director requests it about how much AI was used to help research or develop the frontier AI system.
Such memorandum includes a requirement for such developer, in carrying out such evaluation, to disclose to the Director upon request of the Director information relating to the extent to which an artificial intelligence system was utilized to facilitate or conduct research on or development of such frontier artificial intelligence system
Examples of information that could be disclosed include a measure the developer already keeps in its ordinary business operations, an estimate of how much AI was used without human review, and an explanation of how that estimate was developed. The text presents these as examples rather than requiring all three in every case.
such as any of the following information: (A) A metric maintained by such developer in the ordinary course of business relating to such utilization. (B) An estimate of the extent to which an artificial intelligence system was so utilized without human review. (C) A description of the methodology utilized to develop such estimate.
A covered evaluation would also have to examine whether the frontier AI system can autonomously help with or carry out research or development of an AI system. The phrase “if any” leaves open whether the evaluated system has such capabilities.
Such evaluation includes an evaluation of the capabilities, if any, of such frontier artificial intelligence system to autonomously facilitate or conduct research on or development of an artificial intelligence system.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 16, 2026, records that the bill was introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on August 27, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-16T08:05:50Z. 2026-08-27: Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 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 change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what appears 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 particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; earmark disclosures and accompanying committee materials were not supplied.
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 benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI