Integrating New Technologies to Empower Law Enforcement at Our Borders Act

• Authority: United States Congress
• Parent authority: Federal government
• Jurisdiction: United States
• Collections: U.S. federal laws
• Most recent activity: Defunct
• Most recent activity date: 2025-01-03

Risk subdomain coverage

Minimal coverage — Brief mention but no specific mitigations, recommendations or governance measures relating to the risk subdomain are described.

• Lack of capability or robustness

All other risk subdomains had no coverage in this document.

Risk Coverage Summary

This document has minimal coverage of AI risk domains, with only implicit references to a few subdomains. The document primarily focuses on planning and deploying emerging technologies for border security rather than addressing specific AI risks. There are no explicit discussions of AI-related harms, safety measures, or risk mitigation strategies.

Sector coverage

Good coverage — Comprehensive governance measures or mitigations with clear procedures relating to the sector are explicitly described.

• Public Administration (excl. National Security)
• National Security

Minimal coverage — Brief mention but no specific mitigations, recommendations or governance measures relating to the sector are described.

• Scientific Research & Development Services

All other sectors had no coverage in this document.

Sectors Summary

This document primarily governs AI use in the Public Administration excluding National Security sector, specifically focusing on border security operations by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It also has minimal coverage of the Scientific Research and Development Services sector through coordination with DHS's Science and Technology Directorate, and references private sector technology development without governing specific commercial sectors.

Legislative Status

Hard Law

Legislative Status Summary

This is a binding legislative bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that, if enacted, would impose mandatory legal obligations on the Department of Homeland Security. The document uses mandatory language ('shall develop and submit') and creates enforceable requirements with specific deadlines.

Actors

Proposer

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor
• Entities: Ms. Slotkin; Ms. Spanberger; Mr. Garbarino; Mr. Duarte; United States Congress; Committee on Homeland Security
• Summary: The bill was introduced by four members of Congress (Ms. Slotkin, Ms. Spanberger, Mr. Garbarino, and Mr. Duarte) and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security. These are legislative actors proposing governance requirements for AI and emerging technologies in border security.

Target

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor, AI_Deployer
• Entities: Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate; private sector
• Summary: The primary target is the Department of Homeland Security and its component agency U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which are required to develop and implement the plan. The private sector is also indirectly targeted as entities to be incentivized to develop technologies. DHS acts as both a governance actor (creating the plan) and a deployer (implementing AI technologies).

Enforcer

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor
• Entities: Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives; Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; United States Congress
• Summary: The Congressional committees are designated as the oversight bodies that will receive and review the required plan. Congress has the authority to enforce compliance through its oversight powers, budget authority, and legislative mechanisms.

Monitor

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor
• Entities: Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives; Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate
• Summary: The Congressional committees will monitor compliance through the required plan submission. The DHS Science and Technology Directorate is also mentioned as coordinating on research and development, suggesting an internal monitoring role for technology development and deployment.

AI Lifecycle Stages

Lifecycle stages covered by the documents, as defined in the OECD Framework for the Classification of AI Systems

• Plan and Design
• Verify and Validate
• Deploy
• Operate and Monitor

AI Lifecycle Summary

The document primarily covers the Plan and Design stage, requiring DHS to develop a comprehensive plan for identifying, deploying, and integrating AI and emerging technologies. It also addresses the Deploy stage through requirements for scaling existing programs and transitioning new technology systems. The Operate and Monitor stage is covered through requirements for metrics, multi-domain awareness capabilities, and coordination with the Science and Technology Directorate.

Technical Scope

Terms relating to technical scope that are mentioned or implicitly referenced in the document

• AI Models
• AI Systems

Technical Scope Summary

The document explicitly mentions artificial intelligence and machine-learning as emerging technologies to be deployed for border security. It does not distinguish between different types of AI (frontier, general purpose, task-specific, foundation models, generative, or predictive AI) and does not mention compute thresholds or open-weight models. The focus is on AI as one of several emerging technologies for situational awareness.