PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2] · R–NE
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 Armed Services.
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.
Source last updated: Sep 22, 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.10484 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.10484 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.10484 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.10484 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 · 2026-09-17 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 Covered AI Prohibition Act would require Defense Department guidance on identifying certain artificial intelligence (AI) companies and excluding and removing their AI from department systems and devices. It would also change timing language in an existing provision. The supplied text does not define which companies are covered or reproduce the provision whose timing would change.
This Act may be cited as the Covered AI Prohibition Act.
the Secretary of Defense shall issue Department of Defense-wide guidance for the identification of covered artificial intelligence companies and processes for the exclusion and removal of artificial intelligence developed by such companies from systems and devices of the Department.
in paragraph (3)(B), by striking if and inserting on and after the date that is 90 days after the date on which.
Section 2 would replace an existing guidance provision in the fiscal year 2026 defense authorization law. The Secretary of Defense would have to issue department-wide guidance within 30 days after enactment of the fiscal year 2027 defense authorization law. The guidance must address identifying covered AI companies and processes for excluding and removing their AI from department systems and devices.
Section 1532 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (10 U.S.C. 2224 note) is amended in subsection (a)— (1) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027, the Secretary of Defense shall issue Department of Defense-wide guidance for the identification of covered artificial intelligence companies and processes for the exclusion and removal of artificial intelligence developed by such companies from systems and devices of the Department.
Section 2 would also replace “if” in existing subsection (a)(3)(B) with language specifying “on and after” a date 90 days after a triggering event. Because the surrounding provision is not reproduced, the supplied text does not establish what event starts that period or the full rule affected.
in paragraph (3)(B), by striking if and inserting on and after the date that is 90 days after the date on which.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 22, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Armed Services on September 17, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-22T20:59:05Z. 2026-09-17: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. 2026-09-17: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-17. 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 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 particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying disclosure and report materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow benefit, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in the underlying law, other versions, or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 22, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI