PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, 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. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1] · D–OH
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 Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, 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 Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, 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 Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, 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: 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.10570 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.10570 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.10570 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.10570 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 proposed No Secrets for Data Centers Act of 2026 would limit secrecy agreements about building large data centers. Covered confidentiality clauses agreed to before a lawsuit would be void and unenforceable in court and arbitration if a public official is a party to the agreement in that person's official capacity, or the agreement contains a provision related to public funds, public land, or a public incentive. Data center operators also could not receive public incentives conditioned on agreeing to prohibit, restrict, or penalize disclosure about construction. The proposal preserves confidential filings with state utility regulators when the filing is not for obtaining a public incentive.
This Act may be cited as the No Secrets for Data Centers Act of 2026.
With respect to the building of a data center, a covered predispute nondisclosure clause shall be void and unenforceable in judicial and arbitration proceedings.
The term predispute nondisclosure clause means a nondisclosure clause agreed to before a lawsuit is filed under Federal, State, or Tribal law.
The term covered predispute nondisclosure clause means a predispute nondisclosure clause in a contract or agreement— (A) with respect to which a public official is a party in that person’s capacity as a public official; or (B) that contains a provision related to public funds, public land, or a public incentive.
A data center operator may not receive any public incentive that is conditioned on consent to prohibit, restrict, or penalize disclosure of information related to the building of a data center.
Nothing in this Act may be construed— (1) to prohibit a State or locality from enforcing a provision of State law governing nondisclosure clauses that is at least as protective of the right of an individual to speak freely, as provided by this Act; or (2) to prevent the filing of information related to the building of a data center on a confidential basis with a public utility commission or any other similar State agency that regulates utilities, which filing is not for the purpose of the receipt of a public incentive.
The proposal covers individual facilities primarily housing electronic equipment that processes, stores, and transmits digital information, with maximum rated power capacity or projected peak power load greater than 50 megawatts. It also covers groups of facilities exceeding that threshold in the aggregate, if a majority primarily house that equipment.
The term data center means— (A) any facility that— (i) primarily contains electronic equipment used to process, store, and transmit digital information; and (ii) has a maximum rated power capacity or projected peak power load of greater than 50 megawatts; or (B) any group of facilities— (i) the majority of which primarily contain electronic equipment used to process, store, and transmit digital information; and (ii) that, in the aggregate, have a maximum rated power capacity or projected peak power load of greater than 50 megawatts.
A nondisclosure clause means a contract or agreement provision requiring one or more parties not to disclose or discuss covered conduct, information, or the existence of a settlement involving conduct. The proposal defines “predispute” by whether the clause was agreed to before a lawsuit was filed under federal, state, or Tribal law.
The term nondisclosure clause means a provision in a contract or agreement that requires 1 or more parties to the contract or agreement not to disclose or discuss conduct, the existence of a settlement involving conduct, or information, covered by the terms and conditions of the contract or agreement.
The term predispute nondisclosure clause means a nondisclosure clause agreed to before a lawsuit is filed under Federal, State, or Tribal law.
A predispute nondisclosure clause would be covered if a public official is a party to the contract or agreement in that person's official capacity, or the contract or agreement contains a provision related to public funds, public land, or a public incentive. Public officials include federal, state, Tribal, and local government officers and employees in the United States, measured when the agreement is made.
The term covered predispute nondisclosure clause means a predispute nondisclosure clause in a contract or agreement— (A) with respect to which a public official is a party in that person’s capacity as a public official; or (B) that contains a provision related to public funds, public land, or a public incentive.
The term public official means an individual who, at the time a contract or agreement is agreed to, is an officer or employee of a Federal, State, Tribal, or local unit of government in the United States.
With respect to building a data center, covered predispute nondisclosure clauses would be legally invalid and unenforceable in both judicial and arbitration proceedings.
With respect to the building of a data center, a covered predispute nondisclosure clause shall be void and unenforceable in judicial and arbitration proceedings.
Operators could not receive public incentives conditioned on agreeing to prohibit, restrict, or penalize disclosure about data center construction. Public incentives include tax incentives, payments in lieu of tax assessments, tax abatements, bonds, notes, loans, grants, and rebates issued by federal, state, Tribal, or local government entities.
A data center operator may not receive any public incentive that is conditioned on consent to prohibit, restrict, or penalize disclosure of information related to the building of a data center.
The term public incentive includes a tax incentive, payment in lieu of a tax assessment, a tax abatement, a bond, a note, a loan, a grant, or a rebate, issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or local government entity.
The proposal's definition of an operator includes any person or government entity that builds or operates a data center or purchases data center services, equipment, and facilities.
The term data center operator means any person or government entity that builds or operates a data center or purchases data center services, equipment, and facilities.
The proposal would apply only with respect to claims filed under federal, state, or Tribal law on or after enactment. This timing rule refers to when a claim is filed.
This Act shall only apply with respect to a claim that is filed under Federal, State, or Tribal law on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The proposal would preserve state and local enforcement of state nondisclosure laws that protect an individual's freedom to speak at least as much as this proposal would.
Nothing in this Act may be construed— (1) to prohibit a State or locality from enforcing a provision of State law governing nondisclosure clauses that is at least as protective of the right of an individual to speak freely, as provided by this Act;
The proposal would preserve the ability to file information related to building a data center confidentially with a public utility commission or similar state utility regulator, provided the filing is not for obtaining a public incentive.
Nothing in this Act may be construed—
(2) to prevent the filing of information related to the building of a data center on a confidential basis with a public utility commission or any other similar State agency that regulates utilities, which filing is not for the purpose of the receipt of a public incentive.
The supplied October 5, 2026 snapshot records House introduction on September 24, 2026 and referral that day to the Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means committees for provisions within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-05T12:09:42Z.
2026-09-24: Introduced in House
2026-09-24: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, 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 · 2026-09-24. 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 after reviewing 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 after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials; formal earmark disclosures and related 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, preferential treatment, or exception warranting a targeted-benefit finding was identified after reviewing 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