HR-9323-119
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsored by Luz Rivas (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would establish the Department of Advanced Technology and Artificial Intelligence as a new Cabinet-level executive department, headed by a Senate-confirmed Secretary. The department would develop a federal AI policy framework, coordinate AI standards and practices across all federal agencies, fund AI research, create safety and oversight standards, build cybersecurity incident reporting systems, and develop strategies for AI literacy in schools and workforce programs. The bill also requires the Government Accountability Office to submit a report within 180 days assessing existing AI regulations, identifying duplication across agencies, and recommending a structure, staffing, and legislative actions for the new department.
Who benefits
Federal agencies that currently lack coordinated AI guidance. Technology companies seeking a single regulatory point of contact rather than navigating multiple agency frameworks. Workers who may benefit from labor displacement strategies and workforce retraining programs. Students who could gain access to AI literacy programs. Cybersecurity professionals whose field would receive new federal investment. Researchers who could receive federal funding for AI infrastructure. Consumers who may gain new privacy and safety protections if the department's recommended regulations are later enacted.
Who is hurt
Existing federal agencies (e.g., FTC, NIST, DARPA, NSF) that currently hold AI-related authority and may lose jurisdiction, funding, or staff to the new department. Taxpayers who would bear the cost of standing up a new Cabinet-level bureaucracy. State governments whose own AI regulations could eventually be preempted by the new department's federal framework. Technology companies that could face new compliance costs under future regulations the department promulgates. Congressional committees that currently oversee AI policy across multiple jurisdictions and may see their oversight authority consolidated or diluted.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that AI governance is currently fragmented across dozens of federal agencies with no unified strategy, creating inconsistent standards and regulatory gaps. They contend that a dedicated Cabinet-level department — similar to how the Department of Homeland Security consolidated post-9/11 security functions — would provide the focused leadership and cross-agency coordination that a transformative technology requires. They also argue the built-in GAO review ensures the department's structure is evidence-based before full implementation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that creating an entirely new Cabinet department is a costly and slow solution when existing agencies like NIST, the FTC, and the NSF already have statutory authority and technical expertise over AI-related domains. They contend that the bill's mission is largely advisory and framework-oriented, leaving core regulatory authority undefined, which could produce bureaucratic overlap rather than clarity. They further argue that post-Loper Bright (2024), any regulations the new department promulgates will face heightened judicial scrutiny without clear congressional authorization for each specific rule.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to establish executive departments under Article II and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18). However, any regulations the new department promulgates — particularly those touching digital surveillance, content, or data privacy — would implicate the Fourth Amendment (Carpenter v. United States, 2018) and First Amendment (Moody v. NetChoice, 2024). Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts will independently review whether the department's future rules fall within the statutory authority Congress actually granted, rather than deferring to the agency's own interpretation.
Checks and balances
The executive branch gains a new Cabinet-level department with broad AI policy authority; checks include Senate confirmation of the Secretary, GAO oversight reporting to Congress, and judicial review of any regulations the department issues.
Historical precedent
The Department of Homeland Security Act of 2002 is the most recent precedent for creating a new Cabinet-level department by consolidating functions from existing agencies, though that reorganization was far larger in scope and involved explicit transfers of existing statutory authority.