Homestake AI Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 15, 2026
Bottom line
The bill establishes a significant federal initiative to systematically collect, sequence, and securely store genetic material from extremophiles, with the goal of fostering scientific breakthroughs and new medical treatments.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Energy to establish an extremophile whole genome sequencing initiative. The initiative will collect, catalogue, and sequence genetic material from organisms found in extreme environments, create a publicly accessible database for this data, and develop a plan for a catastrophe-resilient long-term storage facility for physical samples. It aims to advance scientific discovery and support the development of new healthcare treatments.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this initiative is crucial for maintaining U.S. leadership in biotechnology, unlocking novel biological compounds, and accelerating the discovery of new healthcare treatments, particularly for diseases like cancer, diabetes, and dementia. They emphasize the importance of a secure, long-term repository for these invaluable biological resources.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the substantial, unspecified costs associated with establishing and maintaining a new federal initiative and a specialized, catastrophe-resilient storage facility. They may also question the potential for duplication of existing research efforts or the practical challenges of implementing stringent data security measures while promoting scientific accessibility.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing for a thorough review within a short timeframe, making it accessible for informed readers to evaluate its provisions.
Sec. 2(b)
Extremophile Whole Genome Sequencing Initiative Establishment
This provision directs the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Undersecretary of Science, to establish an 'extremophile whole genome sequencing initiative' within 90 days of the bill's enactment. The initiative must align with the goals of the 'Genesis Mission' (Executive Order 14363) and aims to facilitate the collection of new genomic data to advance scientific discovery and support the development of new healthcare treatments.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this initiative is vital for advancing genomic science, identifying novel biological compounds, and fostering innovation in medicine and biotechnology, aligning with national strategic scientific goals.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the establishment of scientific research initiatives, though general concerns about scope and cost might exist.
Tradeoffs
Balancing the broad scope of scientific discovery with focused application towards specific healthcare treatment goals.
Sec. 2(c)(1)(A)-(D)
Genomic Data Collection, Cataloguing, and Database Creation
Under the initiative, the Secretary is mandated to collect, catalogue, and sequence whole genomes and metabolites from extremophile samples. This data will be stored in a new or existing database (like the National Center for Biotechnology Information's), including sequence data, genome assemblies, peptides, metabolite data, and associated metadata. The Secretary must collaborate with industry, academia, and other government agencies to incorporate existing relevant data and make the database accessible to persons in the United States, while preventing sharing with adversary nations.
Sec. 2(c)(1)(E), (c)(4), (c)(6)
Plan for Catastrophe-Resistant Long-Term Storage Facility
The bill directs the Secretary to develop a plan within one year for the construction of a new long-term storage facility for collected samples. This facility must be designed to remain operational even during catastrophic incidents. Location considerations include co-location with DOE facilities, underground storage in remote areas, and resilience to natural disasters. The bill also outlines specific requirements for sample management, including consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Director of the National Museum of Natural History, and strictly prohibits the transfer, export, or loan of physical samples outside the United States.
Sec. 2(c)(3)
Selection of Extremophile Collection Locations
Within 180 days of enactment, the Secretary must select at least 5 locations for sample collection. At least one location must be a mine deeper than 4,500 feet that houses an underground science facility. Selection criteria include the uniqueness of the location or its properties (e.g., extreme heat/pressure), risk of destruction before 2050, potential for finding useful organisms, and relevance to healthcare treatments for cancer, diabetes, and dementia. Preference may be given to locations on land owned or controlled by the Department of Energy, and the selection must ensure a broad range of extreme conditions.
Sec. 2(c)(5)
Data Standards and Cybersecurity Safeguards
The Secretary is directed to leverage existing and emerging data standards to ensure high-quality, usable, and interoperable data, with appropriate metadata. Data outputs must meet applicable Federal data standards for biological data, or if none exist, Secretary-established standards based on FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) principles and industry best practices. Data must also comply with United States Geological Survey standards for biological data. Crucially, appropriate cybersecurity and access safeguards, consistent with NIST special publications 800-53 and 800-111, must be implemented to protect the generated and stored data.
Sec. 2(d)
Interagency and Private Sector Coordination
The bill authorizes the Secretary to coordinate with various entities, including other DOE offices, the Department of Agriculture, the Smithsonian Institution, the Department of Health and Human Services (including NIH and CDC), academia, nonprofit organizations (especially those focused on cancer, diabetes, and dementia research or biodiversity conservation), and private sector entities (pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence industries). It also establishes a 501(c)(3) foundation to receive in-kind contributions from biotechnology and other private sector companies to assist in carrying out the initiative and supporting the covered facility.
This provision states that no collection of samples under the initiative, whether by the Secretary or a third party, may occur after the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 2(c)(8)
Why it matters:This could be standard legislative practice to set a defined operational timeline for the most resource-intensive phase of the initiative, ensuring a focused effort and preventing indefinite expansion of collection activities. It might also be a cost-control measure.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this sunset clause provides a clear operational timeline for the collection phase, allowing for focused effort and preventing indefinite expansion, thereby shifting resources towards analysis and maintenance of the collected data and facility.
Case against: Critics might contend that a 5-year limit on active collection is too restrictive, potentially missing future opportunities for discovery as new extreme environments are identified or as scientific understanding evolves, thus limiting the long-term breadth of the extremophile collection.
Estimated impact: Limits the scope and duration of active fieldwork, potentially impacting the total diversity and volume of samples collected over time. It shifts the initiative's focus to analysis and preservation after five years.
This provision explicitly states that any physical samples collected under the initiative shall not be transferred, exported, or loaned outside the United States.
Sec. 2(c)(6)(E)
Why it matters:This is a significant national security and intellectual property protection measure, strategically placed within the storage requirements to ensure its broad applicability to all physical samples collected under the initiative.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is essential for national security, protecting U.S. intellectual property, and preventing adversary nations from accessing potentially valuable biological resources that could have strategic implications.
Case against: Some international scientific collaborators might argue that this restriction limits global scientific exchange and collaboration, potentially hindering broader research efforts that could benefit from shared physical samples and expertise across borders.
Estimated impact: Ensures all physical samples collected under the initiative remain within U.S. jurisdiction, impacting the nature and extent of international research collaboration models involving these specific biological materials.