The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 10502·119th Congress·Introduced Sep 17, 2026

To direct the Director of National Intelligence to 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.

IntroducedArmed Forces and National SecuritySubstantive
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. McDowell, Addison P. [R-NC-6]
Committees
Intelligence (Permanent Select) Committee (primary)
Last action
Sep 17, 2026

Bottom line

This bill mandates a DNI report to Congress on the intelligence community's use of AI with FISA Section 702 data, focusing on compliance and safeguards.

What it actually does

This bill directs the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to submit a report to Congress within 180 days of enactment. The report must detail how elements of the intelligence community utilize artificial intelligence (AI) systems to acquire, analyze, query, disseminate, or otherwise access information collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It also requires an assessment of safeguards to ensure AI use complies with FISA and the Fourth Amendment, information submitted to the FISA Court, and identification of the types of AI models being used.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue this bill enhances transparency and congressional oversight regarding the intelligence community's use of advanced AI technologies in foreign intelligence collection. They contend it is crucial for Congress to understand how AI is being deployed with sensitive Section 702 data to ensure compliance with legal and constitutional protections, particularly the Fourth Amendment, and to inform future policy decisions on surveillance and technology.

Opponents contend

Critics might argue that mandating such a detailed report could inadvertently reveal sensitive intelligence methods and capabilities, potentially compromising national security operations. They may also contend that the intelligence community already has robust internal oversight mechanisms and that a public-facing or even classified report could create unnecessary bureaucratic burdens or expose vulnerabilities to adversaries.

The bill is exceptionally short and clear, allowing for a quick and thorough understanding well within any reasonable time allocation.

Section 1(a) and 1(b)

Mandate for DNI Report on AI Use under FISA Section 702

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision requires the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to deliver a report to Congress within 180 days of the bill's enactment. The report must detail how various intelligence agencies use artificial intelligence systems to handle data collected under Section 702 of FISA, including how AI is used to acquire, analyze, query, disseminate, or otherwise access user data. It also mandates an assessment of safeguards to ensure AI use complies with FISA and the Fourth Amendment, information submitted to the FISA Court regarding AI use, and identification of specific AI models.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupDirector of National Intelligence (DNI) and intelligence community elements (e.g., CIA, FBI, NSA)ImpactIncreased reporting requirements and coordination duties.MechanismDirect legislative mandate.ScaleAffects internal operations and reporting structures.
GroupCongressImpactEnhanced oversight and access to information regarding intelligence activities.MechanismReceipt of a mandated report.ScaleImproves legislative branch's understanding of executive branch practices.
GroupPublic/Civil Liberties AdvocatesImpactPotential for greater transparency and accountability regarding surveillance practices.MechanismReport could inform public debate and advocacy.ScaleIndirect, but significant for public discourse.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue this provision is essential for modernizing congressional oversight to keep pace with technological advancements in intelligence gathering. They believe it provides critical transparency into the use of powerful AI systems that could impact privacy and civil liberties, ensuring that such tools are used within legal and constitutional bounds.

Critics contend

Opponents might argue that requiring such a detailed report could force the intelligence community to disclose sensitive operational details, potentially compromising intelligence sources, methods, or capabilities. They may also contend that existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient and that this mandate adds an unnecessary administrative burden without a clear benefit to national security.

Tradeoffs

The provision navigates the tension between the need for congressional oversight and transparency regarding advanced surveillance technologies, and the intelligence community's need to protect sensitive methods and sources to maintain operational effectiveness and national security.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
Ask Ledger AI about this