PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 27, 2025
Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act or the AI Accountability Act
This bill requires the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to study and report on accountability measures for artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Under the bill, accountability measures are mechanisms designed to assure that a system is trustworthy, including audits, assessments, and certifications.
Specifically, the NTIA must study, solicit stakeholder feedback about, and report to Congress on the incorporation of accountability measures into AI systems used by communications technologies (such as telecommunications networks and social media platforms) and the ways in which AI accountability measures reduce risks related to AI systems (e.g., cybersecurity risks), among other topics.
The NTIA must also solicit stakeholder feedback and report to Congress on (1) information that should be available to individuals, communities, and businesses that interact with, are affected by, or study AI systems; and (2) methods for making that information available.
People & committees
Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9] · 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 Energy and Commerce.
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: May 14, 2025. 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.1694 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.1694 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.1694 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.1694 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 · 2025-02-27 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 AI Accountability Act would require the Commerce Department to study ways to check whether artificial intelligence systems are trustworthy. It would also require public meetings about accountability and what information should be available to people, communities, and businesses affected by these systems. Two reports to Congress, due within 18 months after enactment, would present findings and recommendations.
This Act may be cited as the Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act or the AI Accountability Act.
The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information shall conduct a study on accountability measures for artificial intelligence systems
the Assistant Secretary shall hold public meetings to consult with relevant stakeholders for the purpose of soliciting feedback on accountability measures for artificial intelligence systems.
Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of the study required by subsection (a)
The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information shall hold public meetings to consult with relevant stakeholders (including representatives of industry, academia, and consumers)
the information that should be available to individuals, communities, and businesses that interact with, are affected by, or study artificial intelligence systems
Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of the meetings
recommendations for governmental and nongovernmental actions to support effective accountability measures for artificial intelligence systems.
recommendations with respect to— (A) the information that should be available to individuals, communities, and businesses that interact with, are affected by, or study artificial intelligence systems; and (B) the methods to be used for making such information available
The bill defines an accountability measure as a mechanism designed to provide assurance that a system is trustworthy. Examples include audits, assessments, and certifications—ways to examine or attest to a system's trustworthiness.
the term accountability measure means a mechanism, including an audit, an assessment, or a certification, designed to provide assurance that a system is trustworthy.
The required study would examine accountability measures in AI used by communications networks, including telecommunications and social media, and applications that share electromagnetic spectrum, such as radio frequencies. It would also examine how these measures could help close gaps in access to and participation in digital technology; the bill does not establish that those improvements would occur.
(1) How accountability measures are being incorporated into artificial intelligence systems used by communications networks (including telecommunications networks and social media platforms) and electromagnetic spectrum sharing applications. (2) How accountability measures for artificial intelligence systems can facilitate the closing of the digital divide and assist the promotion of digital inclusion in the United States.
The study would examine how accountability measures might reduce AI risks, including cybersecurity risks. It would also examine how “trustworthy” is defined and used in different AI settings and how it relates to “responsible” and “human-centric,” or focused on people.
(3) How accountability measures may reduce risks related to artificial intelligence systems, including cybersecurity risks. (4) How the term trustworthy is used and defined in the context of artificial intelligence, including how the term may be applied in various contexts related to artificial intelligence. (5) The relationship, with respect to artificial intelligence, between the term trustworthy and other terms such as responsible and human-centric.
The Assistant Secretary would have to hold public meetings to gather feedback from relevant stakeholders on AI accountability measures as part of the study.
In carrying out the study required by subsection (a), the Assistant Secretary shall hold public meetings to consult with relevant stakeholders for the purpose of soliciting feedback on accountability measures for artificial intelligence systems.
Within 18 months after enactment, the Assistant Secretary would have to send the study report to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. It would include the analysis, public-meeting feedback, and recommendations for government and nongovernment action to support effective accountability measures.
Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of the study required by subsection (a) that shall include— (1) the results of the analysis required by subsection (a); (2) a description of the feedback provided during the meetings required by subsection (b); and (3) recommendations for governmental and nongovernmental actions to support effective accountability measures for artificial intelligence systems.
A separate public-meeting requirement would gather input from relevant stakeholders, including industry, academia, and consumers. The meetings would address what information should be available to people, communities, and businesses that interact with, are affected by, or study AI, and the most effective ways to make that information available.
The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information shall hold public meetings to consult with relevant stakeholders (including representatives of industry, academia, and consumers) for the purpose of soliciting feedback on— (1) the information that should be available to individuals, communities, and businesses that interact with, are affected by, or study artificial intelligence systems; and (2) the most effective methods for making such information available to such individuals, communities, and businesses.
Within 18 months after enactment, the Assistant Secretary would have to send those same two congressional committees a report on the information-access meetings. It would describe the feedback and recommend what information should be available and how to make it available.
Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of the meetings required by subsection (a) that shall include— (1) a description of the feedback provided during the meetings; and (2) recommendations with respect to— (A) the information that should be available to individuals, communities, and businesses that interact with, are affected by, or study artificial intelligence systems; and (B) the methods to be used for making such information available to such individuals, communities, and businesses.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated May 14, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 27, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-05-14T19:00:35Z. 2025-02-27: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2025-02-27: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-27. 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 rider 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 and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
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: May 14, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI