H. Res. 286 (119th)Bill Overview

Of inquiry requesting the President to transmit certain documents relating to the dangerous, unaccountable use of AI by the United States DOGE Service to jeopardize the private information and essential services of the American people.

Simple ResolutionGovernment Operations and Politics|Advanced technology and technological innovationsComputers and information technology
Cosponsors
Support
Democratic
Introduced
Apr 1, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This House resolution requests that the President transmit, within 14 days of adoption, all records related to any AI technology deployed or used at federal agencies by or at the direction of Elon Musk or associates of the United States DOGE Service from January 20, 2025, to present. Requested materials include Privacy Impact Assessments, System of Records notices, data sources, lists of expenditures or personnel identified for freezes or cuts, communications about legality and harms, individuals involved, logs, code, and IT configurations.

Why people may split

Liberal emphasizes privacy, accountability, and preventing AI-driven benefit cuts

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused and highly specific document-production/resolution of inquiry: it enumerates precise categories of requested materials and sets a short deadline.

This House resolution requests that the President transmit, within 14 days of adoption, all records related to any AI technology deployed or used at federal agencies by or at the direction of Elon Musk or associates of the United States DOGE Service from January 20, 2025, to present.

Requested materials include Privacy Impact Assessments, System of Records notices, data sources, lists of expenditures or personnel identified for freezes or cuts, communications about legality and harms, individuals involved, logs, code, and IT configurations.

Passage5/100

Resolution requests documents and is non-binding; likely to remain a House oversight action if adopted, unlikely to become law or receive Senate action.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused and highly specific document-production/resolution of inquiry: it enumerates precise categories of requested materials and sets a short deadline. However, it lacks procedural safeguards and integration with legal limits (e.g., classification, privilege), does not acknowledge costs or resourcing, and provides no enforcement or dispute-resolution mechanisms.

Contention76/100

Liberal emphasizes privacy, accountability, and preventing AI-driven benefit cuts

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Likely helpedLikely burdened

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitIncreases congressional oversight and public transparency regarding government AI use and data flows.
  • Potential benefitCould reveal privacy risks or unlawful handling of sensitive personally identifiable information.
  • Potential benefitMay identify conflicts of interest and lead to corrective administrative or policy actions.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenMay raise executive branch concerns over disclosure of privileged or classified materials.
  • Potential burdenCould impose administrative burden on agencies to collect, review, and produce large datasets and code.
  • Potential burdenMight risk exposing sensitive operational or security details if unredacted technical records are released.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberal emphasizes privacy, accountability, and preventing AI-driven benefit cuts
Progressive95%

Likely strongly supportive because the resolution pursues transparency, accountability, and protection of Americans' private data.

It targets potential conflicts of interest and alleged use of AI to cut payments or services.

Leans supportive
Centrist65%

Generally supportive of oversight but cautious about process and national security implications.

Would favor targeted, practical disclosure and reasonable protections for sensitive information.

Split reaction
Conservative20%

Likely skeptical or opposed, viewing the resolution as an overbroad, partisan inquiry that could chill private-public partnerships and intrude on executive prerogative.

Concerned about operational and proprietary risks.

Likely resistant
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood5/100

Resolution requests documents and is non-binding; likely to remain a House oversight action if adopted, unlikely to become law or receive Senate action.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • Existence and scope of responsive documents
  • Classification or privilege claims that block disclosure
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Liberal emphasizes privacy, accountability, and preventing AI-driven benefit cuts

Resolution requests documents and is non-binding; likely to remain a House oversight action if adopted, unlikely to become law or receive S…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused and highly specific document-production/resolution of inquiry: it enumerates precise categories of requested materials and sets a short deadline.…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis