Congress Proposes First Comprehensive Federal AI Framework

On June 4, 2026, Representatives Jay Obernolte (R-CA) and Lori Trahan (D-MA) released a bipartisan discussion draft of artificial intelligence legislation titled the Great American Artificial Intelligence Act (GAAIA). The bill is co-sponsored by Representatives Scott Franklin (R-FL), Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA), Erin Houchin (R-IN), and Scott Peters (D-CA). The legislation also incorporates several smaller, previously introduced bipartisan AI bills by Representatives Ted Lieu (D-CA), Sarah McBride (D-DE), Thomas Kean (R-NJ), Valerie Foushee (D-NC), Vince Fong (R-CA), and Andrew Garbarino (R-NY).  

As Congress considers the draft discussion bill, PRINTING United Alliance supports efforts to create a clear, balanced, and nationally consistent AI framework that promotes innovation, strengthens workforce readiness, supports responsible governance, and helps businesses adopt AI with greater certainty. 

While the draft has not yet been formally introduced in Congress, it represents a significant step toward establishing a federal framework for AI. The draft builds on bipartisan work conducted through the House Bipartisan AI Task Force, where Representative Obernolte served as co-chair and Representative Trahan was a member. The 269-page draft includes titles focused on: 

Frontier AI Governance - transparency and auditing requirements 

Frontier models are the most advanced AI models available at a given moment, trained on massive datasets to deliver state-of-the-art performance across many tasks, representing the leading edge of AI capability. They typically power advanced reasoning, image and text generation, and agentic workflows. Top frontier models at the moment include Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), GPT-5.5 (OpenAI), and Gemini 3.1 Pro (Google). 

The legislation requires developers of frontier AI models to disclose information about those models, obtain third-party audits through designated Independent Verification Organizations (IVOs), and refrain from retaliating against whistleblowers. The IVOs would evaluate whether developers are meeting legal requirements and adequately addressing catastrophic risks. These requirements draw heavily from recently enacted frontier model laws in California, New York, and Illinois.  

Separate from, but related to, this provision is an executive order issued by President Trump on June 2, 2026, “Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security.” The EO directs U.S. government agencies to accelerate AI-enabled cybersecurity initiatives to design a voluntary framework for engagement with developers of frontier AI models before broader release, and to prioritize criminal enforcement against AI-enabled cyberattacks.  

The EO follows a series of administration actions promoting U.S. AI leadership, including the January 2025 EO “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” the December 2025 EO “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” and other initiatives aimed at accelerating AI adoption and reducing regulatory burdens. 

Federal preemption of state laws 

The legislative proposal would preempt state laws for three years “specifically regulating the development of” any AI model, meaning the process of building and training frontier AI models. The draft broadly defines “development” as “acts performed or directed by a developer prior to its deployment.” The preemption does not apply post-development and does not preempt state laws of “general applicability.” This means that many existing state privacy and consumer protection laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act, would remain unaffected. Critics argue this freezes state-level accountability at a critical moment; supporters argue a patchwork of 50 different development standards is unworkable. 

New WARN Act disclosure requirements 

The bill would create a new AI-related disclosure requirement under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. Employers with 100 or more employees already must provide 60 days’ notice before certain mass layoffs. Under the proposal, if AI was a “substantial factor” in a qualifying layoff, the employer would have to state that in the WARN notice. The notice would also need to explain the type and use of AI involved, estimate the percentage of job losses tied to AI, and describe any steps the employer took to retrain or upskill affected workers before the layoff. 

The bill includes a good-faith standard to protect employers that make reasonable estimates. The Department of Labor would have 300 days after enactment to issue guidance on how employers should determine whether AI was a “substantial factor.” 

Federal data collection on AI’s workforce impact 

The bill would establish an AI Workforce Research Hub within the Department of Labor to evaluate AI’s impact on the workforce, conduct scenario planning, and provide practical insights for policymakers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau would also update federal surveys to better capture data on AI use and adoption. 

Cybersecurity provisions 

The legislation would also extend the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 through fiscal 2035, allowing companies to share cyber threat information without incurring antitrust liability. 

Codification of the Center for AI Standards and Innovation 

The bill would formally authorize the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) within the Commerce Department, allocating $100 million per fiscal year for fiscal years 2027 through 2029. The Center would develop voluntary guidelines, best practices, and standards for AI security, in addition to evaluating AI systems and monitoring AI progress. 

What’s next? 

Several lawmakers have expressed support for the discussion draft, while others have raised concerns. The House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy criticized the proposal, stating that it “does not meet the enormity of the moment.” The draft has also drawn opposition from labor advocates and civil society groups who argue that it does not go far enough to address workforce protections. 

Large frontier AI developers are supportive of the legislation's federal preemption measures. These companies back the bill because it would establish a unified federal framework, preventing a patchwork of stricter, conflicting state-level AI regulations from taking effect. 

The GAAIA sponsors are seeking feedback before the bill is formally introduced. Stakeholders, researchers, and members of the public are encouraged to submit feedback on the discussion draft to GAAIA@mail.house.gov. 

Text of the discussion draft can be accessed HERE. 

A section-by-section summary can be accessed HERE. 

The bill’s path to formal introduction or even passage is filled with uncertainty. Nevertheless, the draft signals a bipartisan effort to move beyond the current patchwork of state-level AI regulation. 

The Alliance’s government affairs team will continue to monitor developments as this legislation progresses through the feedback process and towards potential formal introduction. 

In this article, Stephanie Buka, Government Affairs Manager, PRINTING United Alliance, reports on the draft discussion bill, the Great American Artificial Intelligence Act. More information can be found at Business Excellence-Legislation or reach out to Steph should you have additional questions specific to how these issues may affect your business: sbuka@printing.org.    

To become a member of the Alliance and learn more about how our subject matter experts can assist your company with services and resources such as those mentioned in this article, please contact the Alliance membership team: 888-385-3588 / membership@printing.org.