PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. McDowell, Addison P. [R-NC-6] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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.10502 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.10502 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.10502 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.10502 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.
This bill would require the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress on how intelligence agencies use artificial intelligence to handle information under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The report would describe those uses and assess safeguards for compliance with that law and the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.
the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to Congress a report on the use of artificial intelligence systems to acquire, analyze, query, disseminate, or otherwise access information under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a).
An assessment of the safeguards established by the elements of the intelligence community to ensure that such use of artificial intelligence is in compliance with such Act and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The report would be due within 180 days after enactment. That deadline depends on the bill becoming law.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to Congress a report
The report would summarize how intelligence agencies use artificial intelligence to collect, analyze, search, share, or otherwise access user data under section 702. It would also identify the types of artificial intelligence models being used.
(1) A summary of how elements of the intelligence community are using artificial intelligence systems pursuant to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a) to acquire, analyze, query, disseminate, or otherwise access user data.
(4) An identification of the types of artificial intelligence models being used in carrying out such section 702.
The report would assess agencies’ safeguards for compliance with surveillance law and the Fourth Amendment. This is a requirement to assess safeguards, not a finding that the safeguards are effective or that agencies are complying.
(2) An assessment of the safeguards established by the elements of the intelligence community to ensure that such use of artificial intelligence is in compliance with such Act and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The report would include information that the Justice Department or an intelligence agency submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about these uses of artificial intelligence.
(3) Information submitted by the Department of Justice or an element of the intelligence community to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court relating to such use of artificial intelligence.
The report could include a classified annex—a supplementary part containing classified information. Including one would be optional.
(c) Form The report under subsection (a) may include a classified annex.
The Director of National Intelligence would have to coordinate with the Attorney General and the directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and National Security Agency. The director could also involve other intelligence agency heads deemed appropriate.
(d) Coordination The Director of National Intelligence shall carry out this section in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of the National Security Agency, and any other head of an element of the intelligence community the Director of National Intelligence determines appropriate.
The supplied September 29, 2026 source snapshot records introduction in the House on September 17, 2026, and referral that day to the Judiciary Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for matters within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-29T17:19:38Z.
2026-09-17: Introduced in House
2026-09-17: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 appropriations policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to 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. Other versions and earmark disclosures or accompanying committee materials are 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 treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version, not other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 29, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI