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. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7] · R–NJ
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.
Source last updated: Oct 5, 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.10567 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.10567 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.10567 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.10567 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 · 2026-09-24 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 proposal would require entities that develop or operate advanced artificial intelligence systems in the United States to include a technical way for a human operator to shut those systems down. It would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue rules to ensure compliance within 90 days after enactment.
The term covered entity means any entity that develops or operates an advanced artificial intelligence system in the United States.
Each covered entity shall ensure that the advanced artificial intelligence system developed or operated by the covered entity includes a technical capability for a human operator to shut down the system.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the heads of relevant Federal agencies with jurisdiction over artificial intelligence systems, shall promulgate regulations to ensure compliance with the requirement under subsection (b).
Section 1 would name the legislation the AI Emergency Button Act.
This Act may be cited as the AI Emergency Button Act.
The proposal covers both developers and operators of advanced artificial intelligence systems in the United States. It adopts the definition of artificial intelligence from an existing federal law by reference.
The term covered entity means any entity that develops or operates an advanced artificial intelligence system in the United States.
The term artificial intelligence has the meaning given such term in section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (15 U.S.C. 9401).
Covered entities would have to equip their systems with a human-operated shutdown capability. This provision requires the capability; it does not direct an operator to shut down a system under specified circumstances.
Each covered entity shall ensure that the advanced artificial intelligence system developed or operated by the covered entity includes a technical capability for a human operator to shut down the system.
The Secretary of Homeland Security would have to issue compliance regulations within 90 days after enactment, consulting the heads of relevant federal agencies with authority over artificial intelligence systems. The 90-day deadline applies to issuing regulations.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the heads of relevant Federal agencies with jurisdiction over artificial intelligence systems, shall promulgate regulations to ensure compliance with the requirement under subsection (b).
The supplied action snapshot, updated October 5, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on September 24, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-05T11:55:08Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-24. 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 legislative 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 treatment 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 5, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI