AI regulation by 2027? — By Jan 1, 2027

- [2025-12-18] President Trump signed the FY2026 NDAA (P.L. 119-60) into law; it passed the House on September 10, 2025 (231-196), the Senate on October 9, 2025 (77-20), and was agreed to and signed by December 18, 2025 . The contentious state AI-law moratorium and the GAIN AI Act chip-export provisions were not retained in the final enacted text (per law-firm summaries of the Act's contents), so this does not satisfy the question's criteria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2026 - [2025-12-11] President Trump signed Executive Order 14365, "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence," a sweeping federal action designed to implement a "minimally burdensome" AI governance strategy and to significantly curtail the authority of individual states to regulate AI . This is an executive order, not a law passed by Congress, so it does not itself satisfy the market's "bill becomes law" requirement. https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insights/president-trump-signs-executive-order-preempting-state-ai-laws-and-centralizing-federal-oversight.html - [2026-06-04] Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) and Lori Trahan (D-MA) released the "Great American AI Act" discussion draft, which is a discussion draft, meaning it's in its early stages and subject to revision before formal introduction, and has drawn bipartisan support from four additional co-sponsors and early backing from House Speaker Mike Johnson , with one of the bill's most contested features being its three-year preemption of state laws that regulate AI development . - [2026-07] The draft was reworked into the "FRONTIER Act," which was introduced in late July 2026 as a rework of the earlier Great American AI Act and would preempt new state obligations on "frontier AI" developers in three defined subject areas: catastrophic-risk transparency, third-party auditing, and incident reporting . https://www.theregreview.org/2026/10/07/knapp-the-hidden-costs-of-ai-preemption/ - [2026-09] House Speaker Mike Johnson publicly expressed skepticism about Congress "leading" on AI safety and rejected an AI development "moratorium," which commentary describes as working against passage odds for a federal preemption statute; as of September 2026 the preemption effort "has stalled since June." https://casrai.org/news/federal-ai-moratorium-state-preemption-fight-2026 - [2026-09-03/23] Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar introduced the "Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act" (S.5493 / H.R.10538), which would ban "Artificial Superintelligence"—an AI that exceeds human cognitive performance and capabilities across most domains—and would pause advanced AI development pending new federal safety rules ; this is newly introduced, not enacted. https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/sanders-casar-introduce-legislation-to-create-new-federal-agency-to-ban-artificial-superintelligence-pause-advanced-ai-development - [2026-09-30/10-01] Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Peter Welch (D-VT) introduced the "AI Regulatory Act," which would establish a new, independent agency (a Federal Digital Commission) to regulate frontier AI models and social media, able to order AI companies to pause development for up to six months, designate major tech platforms for oversight, set safeguards for frontier AI and impose penalties ; newly introduced, not enacted. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2026/09/congress-eyes-slew-of-ai-security-proposals/ - [2025-11-06] The GAIN AI Act of 2025 (S.3150), which would require chipmakers to give U.S. buyers priority over "countries of concern" before export licenses are granted, was introduced in the Senate and remains at "Introduced" status per Congress.gov's tracker, having stalled out of the final FY2026 NDAA text amid White House/industry opposition. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3150/text - [2026-05-14] Colorado's legislature passed SB 26-189, rewriting (not repealing) the Colorado AI Act, replacing earlier duties with narrower notification/disclosure/correction/human-review obligations effective January 1, 2027 — illustrating states continuing to legislate AI independently of federal action. https://casrai.org/news/federal-ai-moratorium-state-preemption-fight-2026 - [2026-10-07] Legal commentary (The Regulatory Review) confirms the FRONTIER Act remains the live federal preemption vehicle under discussion, with its scope "narrower than earlier drafts" but still not enacted as of early October 2026. https://www.theregreview.org/2026/10/07/knapp-the-hidden-costs-of-ai-preemption/ - [2026-10-11 cutoff] No bill meeting the market's specific criteria (forbidding LLM creation, limiting training data/parameters, restricting specific LLM applications, or a targeted LLM-specific export ban) has been enacted into law; all relevant bills identified (Great American AI Act/FRONTIER Act, Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, AI Regulatory Act, GAIN AI Act) remain at discussion-draft, introduced, or stalled-in-committee stages. BOTTOM LINE: As of October 11, 2026, no federal AI bill meeting the market's qualifying criteria has become law; multiple relevant bills (frontier-model preemption/FRONTIER Act, Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, AI Regulatory Act, GAIN AI Act) exist but are stuck in draft/introduced stages amid Speaker Johnson's stated reluctance to "lead" on AI regulation, making enactment before January 1, 2027 look difficult absent a rapid, unexpected legislative push. NOT FOUND: No evidence of any AI bill passing both chambers of Congress or being signed into law since the question opened (2025-12-29); no confirmed floor votes scheduled on the FRONTIER Act, Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, or AI Regulatory Act before January 1, 2027.

- [2026-09-11] At the federal level, focus has largely been on governing frontier model risks, but no bills have passed in the current session. This confirms zero qualifying federal AI bills enacted as of the most recent legislative tracking update. Source: https://cdt.org/insights/2026-state-and-federal-ai-legislation-updates/ - [2026-10-06 (page updated)] Base rate for Congress generally: Only 0.6% of bills introduced in the 119th Congress have become law (104 of 18,513). Even narrowing to major, non-ceremonial bills, since 1987, only about 2.4% of bills introduced have become law. Source: https://legislate.dev/congress/119 - [2026-10-11] Median enactment speed in this Congress is slow relative to the question window: Median time from introduction to enactment: 154 days. Range: 0 – 508 days · 105 enacted bills. Any qualifying AI bill introduced today would need to move faster than median to pass before Jan 1, 2027. Source: https://legislate.dev/congress/119 - [2026-09-20] The two leading candidate vehicles for binding federal AI action are not criminalizing/restricting LLM creation, training, or use, but preemption/deregulation bills: That congressional bill Section 8 called for has a real, public shape now, though it has not been introduced as formal legislation... Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-CA), Lori Trahan (D-MA)... released a discussion draft known as the Great American AI Act. As of this writing it remains a discussion draft, not an introduced bill. Source: https://casrai.org/news/federal-ai-moratorium-state-preemption-fight-2026 - [2025-07 / historical] The reference class for Congress actually restricting AI specifically has repeatedly failed: Congress considered a provision that would have preempted state AI regulations for a period of 10 years. After significant media scrutiny and bipartisan opposition, the Senate voted 99-1 to strip it, and Congress then declined to enact a similar state AI preemption moratorium through the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act. Source: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2026/03/examining-the-landscape-and-limitations-of-the-federal-push-to-override-state-ai-regulation - [2026-09 (mid-month)] Leadership signals point against fast legislative action: House Speaker Mike Johnson stated House Speaker Mike Johnson's own skepticism about Congress "leading" on AI safety clouds the odds of a preemption statute passing at all. Source: https://casrai.org/news/federal-ai-moratorium-state-preemption-fight-2026 - [2026 (reported Nov 2025, still pending)] The GAIN AI Act, the bill closest to the export-restriction clause in the resolution criteria, has stalled: it U.S. House of Representative on Wednesday rejected a new measure that would require suppliers of popular AI GPUs — such as AMD or Nvidia — to prioritize shipments of advanced processors to domestic companies over adversary nations like China , after direct lobbying against it. Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/nvidia-lobbies-white-house-and-wins-loosened-ai-gpu-export-control-to-china-u-s-lawmakers-reportedly-reject-gain-ai-act - [2026-10 (recent)] More targeted chip/export legislation remains only at the proposal stage: Congress, meanwhile, is pushing the bipartisan Chip Security Act to mandate hardware-level location verification on exported chips and the GAIN AI Act to require export licensees to prioritize U.S. buyers, both signs that the legislative and executive branches remain at odds over how tightly to control the flow of the world's most valuable technology export. Source: https://gpusmith.com/articles/en/nvidia-gpu-export-restrictions - [2026-10-06] Comprehensive bill trackers confirm no enactment: As of 2026, there is no comprehensive federal AI statute in the United States... Despite dozens of federal AI bills being introduced in the 119th Congress... none have advanced to a floor vote. Congressional gridlock, lobbying by major technology companies, and disagreements over preemption of state law have stalled federal action. Source: https://www.ailawsbystate.com/trends - [2026-09-23] Advocacy pressure for federal action exists but from a different, "regulate more" direction that conflicts with deregulatory bills: a bipartisan coalition of 26 attorneys general (AGs) led by New York AG Letitia James wrote to congressional leadership urging Congress to establish comprehensive federal regulation and safety protocols for frontier artificial intelligence (AI). The letter identifies six elements the signatories say belong in any federal regulatory scheme, including an explicit prohibition on preemption of state AI laws. This cross-pressure (pro-regulation AGs vs. pro-preemption industry/administration) further slows any single bill's path. Source: https://www.regulatoryoversight.com/2026/10/26-state-ags-urge-congress-to-regulate-frontier-ai-and-preserve-state-authority/ - [2026-03] Federal activity to date has been executive, not legislative, and explicitly non-binding: The White House framework is a legislative blueprint, not enacted law. Companies should not treat it as creating immediate federal compliance obligations. This does not count toward the "bill becomes law" resolution criterion. Source: https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/03/white-house-ai-framework-puts-federal-preemption-at-the-center-of-the-debate BOTTOM LINE: The reference class — both generic congressional productivity (≈0.6–2.4% of introduced bills become law, median ~154 days from introduction to enactment) and the specific track record of AI-related bills (two prior defeats of AI preemption/moratorium language at 99-1 and in the NDAA, GAIN AI Act rejected/stalled, Great American AI Act still a non-introduced discussion draft) — strongly favors continued inaction; no qualifying bill has even been introduced with floor momentum, let alone enacted, making a "Yes" resolution by Jan 1, 2027 a low-base-rate outcome absent a major unforeseen acceleration. NOT FOUND: No explicit historical base-rate dataset specifically for "LLM-restricting" legislation (the reference class is inherently thin/novel); no betting-market or expert-forecast aggregator (e.g., Metaculus) numeric estimate was located for this exact resolution criterion; no evidence of any qualifying bill passing both chambers or being signed into law as of October 2026.

YES means: a bill restricting LLM creation/training/use, or a targeted LLM/AI-chip export ban, is signed into federal law between Dec 29, 2025 and Jan 1, 2027. - [2026-03-26] The Chip Security Act (H.R.3447) was ordered to be reported in the nature of a substitute by the House Foreign Affairs Committee by a vote of 42-0 , and cleared committee by a unanimous 42-0 vote, a result that positions it for a floor vote, with the pace depending on House leadership's priorities and Senate action . This bill requires AI-chip export location verification and, if its scope is confirmed to cover LLM-training chips specifically, could satisfy the market's export-restriction clause. - [2026-03-26] The bill's stated purpose ties directly to AI: "This legislation also advances President Trump's AI Action Plan by implementing location verification and denying our adversaries access to compute power." Its origin was explicitly AI-smuggling-driven — introduced as a direct response to bipartisan concerns raised by the Select Committee on China's report on Deepseek, which concluded the company used advanced chips restricted from export to the PRC to develop its AI model — strengthening the case it would be "known to apply to LLM products" per the resolution criteria. - [2026-04] As of the most recent confirmed status check, the bill now heads to the full House for consideration and has not been enacted yet , meaning the committee-passage momentum (unlike FRONTIER Act or GAIN AI Act, which remain stuck pre-markup or were stripped from must-pass vehicles) gives Chip Security Act a procedural head start toward a floor vote in the remaining ~15 months of the Congress. - [2026-10-10] The FRONTIER Act (H.R.9925), introduced July 23, 2026 by Obernolte and Trahan, has an active and recent push for action: Obernolte has asked for a committee vote in November , even though Congress.gov lists no action on H.R. 9925 since July 23 . A November 2026 markup, if it happens, would still leave roughly seven weeks for House floor passage, Senate action, and signature before the Jan 1, 2027 deadline — tight but not impossible given the bill's bipartisan sponsor list and backing from OpenAI and Anthropic. - [2026-09-23] A parallel, harder-edged track exists: the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act (S.5493/H.R.10538) explicitly proposes to prohibit a category of AI systems and pause advanced AI development, which — if it gained unexpected momentum from an AI-safety-incident shock (e.g., the OpenAI-Hugging Face containment breach referenced by Rep. Subramanyam) — would unambiguously satisfy the "forbid creation" prong of the resolution criteria. - [2026-09-10] Evidence of real legislative appetite for containment-style restrictions exists independent of FRONTIER: Rep. Subramanyam's push followed reports that the OpenAI models' breach from containment environments during routine testing has prompted potential updates to the pending FRONTIER Act , showing that a further high-profile AI safety incident before year-end could accelerate floor action on containment/use-restriction language that would qualify under the market's "restrict certain uses" clause. - [2026-09-16 reported] Despite Speaker Johnson's skepticism (noted by colleagues), Energy and Commerce Chairman Guthrie's own comments show the bill is alive, not dead: Obernolte has said he wants a committee vote on the bill in November, but Guthrie appeared to oppose the idea, saying he's not going to say that the bill is going to move because it's complicated and he wouldn't want to rush it in a lame-duck session — this is reluctance about speed, not a declaration the bill is abandoned, leaving a path (however narrow) via a lame-duck push in December 2026. - [2026-10-07] External policy analysis still treats the FRONTIER Act as the "live" vehicle (per colleagues' Oct 7 citation), and advocacy groups are actively lobbying for floor action, e.g. "The House should move it through its committees of jurisdiction and bring it to the floor for a vote." Sustained advocacy pressure plus bipartisan industry backing (OpenAI, Anthropic) is the kind of coalition that has, in other Congresses, forced floor votes within a single session. BOTTOM LINE: The single most credible YES path is a two-track race between the Chip Security Act (already past committee 42-0 and awaiting only a House floor vote, Senate action, and signature) and the FRONTIER Act (targeting a November 2026 committee markup per its sponsor); either reaching enactment by Jan 1, 2027 would require unusually fast floor scheduling in both chambers within roughly 10-12 weeks, which is strained but not unprecedented for a unanimously-reported bipartisan bill with White House-aligned export/security framing. NOT FOUND: No confirmed House floor vote date for the Chip Security Act as of October 2026; no confirmation that the Chip Security Act's "covered integrated circuit product" definition is explicitly tied to LLM training use (would need confirmation to meet the market's "known to apply to LLM products" clause); no confirmation of a Senate companion markup schedule for S.1705; no evidence of any lame-duck legislative calendar commitment from Speaker Johnson for December 2026.

YES means: a bill becomes law by Jan 1, 2027 that satisfies the resolution's specific criteria — i.e., it forbids creating LLM-based products, restricts how they are trained (data/parameter limits), bars specific LLM applications/uses, or imposes a targeted (non-blanket) export restriction on LLM products tied to a foreign country/countries. - [2026-07-23] The FRONTIER Act (H.R.9925), the most advanced federal AI vehicle, was introduced and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker — it has not moved past committee referral as of this writing. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/9925 - [2026-10-07] Even on its merits, FRONTIER Act does not meet the market's substantive bar: it is a transparency/audit regime, not a creation ban, training limit, use restriction, or export control — it would preempt new state obligations on "frontier AI" developers in three defined subject areas: catastrophic-risk transparency, third-party auditing, and incident reporting , which is a different legal target than what the resolution criteria require. https://www.theregreview.org/2026/10/07/knapp-the-hidden-costs-of-ai-preemption/ - [2026-10-08] Critics confirm the bill's substantive weakness even if passed: the bill's preemption clause continues to leave a serious hole in regulatory oversight of AI models, leaving the decision to release AI models that pose a serious threat in the hands of the developers, who perform a cost-benefit analysis on whether deployment of a high-risk model is acceptable — i.e., no creation/training/use ban is embedded in the text. https://ari.us/frontier-act-improves-on-prior-proposal-but-requires-critical-changes/ - [2026-09-02] Congress has been consumed by fiscal fights, not AI policy: a CR keeps federal agencies funded at current levels through December 11, 2026 , meaning another funding cliff lands just three weeks before the market's Jan 1, 2027 deadline, crowding out floor time for any new substantive AI statute. - [2026] 2026 already saw two shutdowns eat session time: two shutdowns of the U.S. federal government occurred in 2026... The first shutdown lasted four days from January 31 to February 3... The second shutdown... lasted from February 14 to April 30 (76 days) — a 76-day stoppage earlier in the year shows how easily floor time evaporates, reducing the realistic number of legislative days left for a new AI bill before year-end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_federal_government_shutdowns - [2026-08-26] Independent of shutdown risk, Congress's working calendar is thin: lawmakers had only 16 legislative days between their impending return to Washington, D.C., and their departure for the midterm elections , illustrating how little floor time exists in any given stretch of 2026 for non-appropriations business. https://www.moaa.org/content/publications-and-media/news-articles/2026-news-articles/advocacy/august-recess-ends-whats-next-for-congress-before-the-election/ - [2026-08-28] FY2027 appropriations are also unfinished, guaranteeing another appropriations scramble that will compete with any AI bill for scarce December floor time: the House had passed only 2 of the 12 required FY2027 appropriations bills, and the Senate had passed zero — making a full-year budget deal before October 1 virtually impossible . https://political.org/2026/08/28/congress-faces-tight-timeline-on-government-funding-upon-return-from-recess/ - [2026 (committee tracker)] No House Energy & Commerce markup of the FRONTIER Act (or its predecessor) appears in the committee's public markup/hearing listings through early October 2026 despite sponsors' earlier hope for a September markup, indicating the bill has not even cleared committee consideration. https://www.congress.gov/committee/house-energy-and-commerce/hsif00 - [2026-01] Even the GAIN AI Act's narrower, export-specific provision — the closest match to the resolution's export-restriction clause — was rejected/stalled at the House level per prior reporting, and no replacement export-control bill targeting LLM products specifically has advanced since. - [2026] The only AI-adjacent bills with any legislative momentum (FRONTIER Act, Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, AI Regulatory Act) are all either narrowly scoped to transparency/reporting (not creation/training/use bans) or newly introduced within the last six weeks, both of which argue against reaching enactment by Jan 1, 2027 given typical bill timelines. BOTTOM LINE: Congress's 2026 calendar has been dominated by two shutdowns and unfinished FY2027 appropriations work running right up to a Dec 11, 2026 funding deadline, leaving minimal floor time for AI legislation; the one bill with real momentum (FRONTIER Act) remains stuck in committee since its July 23 introduction and, even if passed, imposes transparency/audit duties rather than the creation/training/use/export restrictions the resolution requires — reinforcing a strong structural case for NO. NOT FOUND: No evidence of any House Energy & Commerce or Senate committee markup scheduled for the FRONTIER Act, Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, or AI Regulatory Act before Jan 1, 2027; no confirmed floor vote date for any qualifying AI bill; no indication Congress plans to prioritize AI-specific restriction legislation over funding/appropriations work in November–December 2026.