Skip to content

Menu

Network by SubjectChannelsBlogsHomeAboutContact
AI Legal Journal logo
Subscribe
Search
Close
PublishersBlogsNetwork by SubjectChannels
Subscribe

AI Industry Could Face New House Committee Armed with Subpoena Power

By Brian D. Smith, Angelle Smith Baugh, Matthew Shapanka, Elizabeth Upton & Joshua Schenk on September 15, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The artificial intelligence industry could face a new, dedicated congressional investigative committee if Democratic Members of Congress take control of the House of Representatives following November’s midterm elections.  The House Democratic leaders are reportedly laying the groundwork to create a select committee focused on artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the new Congress, potentially with a broad investigative mandate and subpoena power.  Proponents of a new AI House select committee have reportedly briefed House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the likely speaker if Democratic Members reclaim the majority, who expressed openness to the idea.

The Significance of a Select Committee

A select committee on AI would establish a single forum within the House to coordinate AI oversight, rather than rely on multiple standing committees with overlapping jurisdiction for various aspects of AI.  A select committee would also potentially give House leadership tighter control over AI-related investigations and messaging, although it would not strip the standing committees of their respective jurisdictions over various aspects of AI matters. 

The full House would need to create a select committee by resolution, which would define the scope of the committee’s powers.  Such a resolution could, for example, be included in the usual package of rules measures enacted at the start of each House session.  If the House granted subpoena authority to a new select committee on AI, the committee would have the power to compel documents and witness testimony, just as standing committees do under the House rules.  A select committee’s ability to report legislation, unlike a standing committee’s authority, depends entirely on its authorizing resolution.  Historically, select committees have served as investigative and policy-development bodies while standing committees have retained legislative jurisdiction.  The House Select Committee on China, for example, follows this model—it conducts investigations, holds hearings, and issues reports and recommendations, but it cannot consider or report legislation.

A select committee could help House leadership coordinate oversight across multiple issue areas implicated by AI.  Congress has often used select committees to focus attention on issues viewed as transcending traditional committee boundaries, including intelligence, climate, and strategic competition with China.  In addition, House leadership controls the selection of members to serve on a select committee, which often enables leadership to select Members with common or aligned views.  Select committees are therefore often uniquely positioned to advance a unified perspective, aligned with party leadership, on the relevant underlying issue.

The House’s Select Committee on China illustrates that a select committee can become very influential, spurring focus and attention on a key policy matter.  Since its creation in 2023, the Select Committee on China has conducted oversight across numerous industries, held dozens of hearings, sent oversight letters to corporations and executive agencies, issued multiple reports, and developed bipartisan policy recommendations that have influenced broader legislative and executive branch policy related to China.

Scope of the Mandate

The proposed AI select committee follows earlier efforts by House Democratic leadership to establish a dedicated forum for AI policy, and a bipartisan AI task force led by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Cal.) and Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Cal.) that issued a report on AI at the end of the last Congress.  The AI task force, however, had a narrow mandate of developing policy recommendations.

In contrast, a resolution establishing the jurisdiction of a select committee on AI could authorize a far wider range of activities.  AI policy spans multiple existing committee jurisdictions, including consumer protection, privacy, intellectual property, national security, energy infrastructure, labor, and scientific research.  Accordingly, an AI committee’s scope could span from a relatively narrow mandate focused on coordinating oversight and investigation of discrete cross-cutting issues, to a broader mandate authorizing investigations and legislation on matters that standing committees traditionally handle, including the regulation of advanced AI models, data center construction, the procurement and use of AI by government agencies, and federal preemption of state AI laws.

Depending on its ultimate scope, a select committee on AI could become the focal point for investigations into technical AI risks, along with the business practices, governance structures, training data, and government relationships of companies developing and deploying AI systems.

Standing committee chairs could resist a select committee with broad powers and jurisdictional scope.  The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology all currently oversee significant aspects of AI policy.  If there is a change in control, the incoming chairs of these committees may be reluctant to cede authority at a pivotal moment in shaping AI policy.  Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Ranking Member House Energy and Commerce Committee, has already expressed concern over the proposed select committee, specifically noting the select committee “would only further delay legislation.”  Securing support from these committees may be one of the principal challenges facing the proposal.

Implications for Industry

Although Congress and the executive branch have devoted substantial attention to AI governance, lawmakers have struggled to achieve consensus on comprehensive legislation, and states continue to pursue their own regulatory approaches.  The proposed select committee could become particularly significant in an environment in which Congress remains divided on comprehensive AI legislation.  Even without advancing major legislation, a select committee could exert significant influence by holding hearings, requesting information, investigating industry and government actors, and issuing reports.  

As we recently previewed, a potential Democratic majority would likely feature AI prominently on its investigative agenda.  Based on existing Democratic oversight priorities, areas of focus could include frontier model safety, competition within the AI sector, the use of copyrighted works and personal data to train AI systems, workforce displacement and labor effects, the energy and environmental consequences of data center expansion, and relationships between AI companies and federal agencies.  Such inquiries could also extend beyond AI developers to include companies deploying AI systems in consumer-facing products and in sectors such as critical infrastructure, healthcare, financial services, defense, and workforce management.

These efforts would not start from scratch.  Recent oversight activity has included inquiries into AI safety, national security risks, intellectual property issues, algorithmic pricing, and the infrastructure needed to support AI development.  A select committee could consolidate AI-related efforts within a single forum with a broad mandate and a dedicated staff armed with the power to subpoena documents and testimony.  Companies developing or deploying AI could face deeper and more sustained scrutiny from a select committee than is typical from standing committees balancing competing priorities.

Whether this House select committee on AI materializes will depend on the outcome of the November elections and the ability of the proposal’s proponents to overcome potential resistance from standing committee leadership.  But even if the House does not establish the select committee, the proposal illustrates the central role AI will likely play in the next Congress.  Companies involved in developing, deploying, financing, or using AI systems should expect congressional scrutiny of AI-related issues to intensify.

Photo of Brian D. Smith Brian D. Smith

Brian Smith provides strategic and legal advice on matters that require substantial political, reputational, or government relations considerations.  He represents companies and individuals in high-profile or high-risk investigations, particularly congressional investigations, criminal investigations with political implications, and investigations related to political law compliance. …

Brian Smith provides strategic and legal advice on matters that require substantial political, reputational, or government relations considerations.  He represents companies and individuals in high-profile or high-risk investigations, particularly congressional investigations, criminal investigations with political implications, and investigations related to political law compliance.  He has significant experience in crisis management, where he advises clients facing combined legal, political, and media relations risks.  His practice also includes the development and execution of government relations initiatives, including securing the U.S. government’s political support on behalf of U.S. companies facing international legal issues.

Read more about Brian D. Smith
Show more Show less
Photo of Angelle Smith Baugh Angelle Smith Baugh

Angelle Smith Baugh is a special counsel in the firm’s White Collar Litigation and Election & Political Law practice groups.  Ms. Baugh’s practice includes defense against government investigations in civil and criminal matters before the Department of Justice, Federal Election Commission, and Congressional…

Angelle Smith Baugh is a special counsel in the firm’s White Collar Litigation and Election & Political Law practice groups.  Ms. Baugh’s practice includes defense against government investigations in civil and criminal matters before the Department of Justice, Federal Election Commission, and Congressional Ethics Committees.  She also provides ongoing political law advice, including federal and state ethics, election, and lobbying laws, to companies, trade associations, PACs, and high net-worth individuals.

Read more about Angelle Smith Baugh
Show more Show less
Matthew Shapanka

Matthew Shapanka draws on more than 15 years of experience – including on Capitol Hill, at Covington, and in state government – to advise and counsel clients across a range of industries on significant legislative, regulatory, and enforcement matters. He develops and executes…

Matthew Shapanka draws on more than 15 years of experience – including on Capitol Hill, at Covington, and in state government – to advise and counsel clients across a range of industries on significant legislative, regulatory, and enforcement matters. He develops and executes complex, multifaceted public policy initiatives for clients seeking actions by Congress, state legislatures, and federal and state government agencies, many with significant legal and political opportunities and risks.

Matt rejoined Covington after serving as Chief Counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, where he advised Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on all legal, policy, and oversight matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including federal election law and campaign finance, and oversight of the Federal Election Commission, legislative branch agencies, security and maintenance of the U.S. Capitol Complex, and Senate rules and regulations.

Most significantly, Matt led the Rules Committee staff work on the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act – landmark bipartisan legislation to update the antiquated process of certifying and counting electoral votes in presidential elections that President Biden signed into law in 2022.

As Chief Counsel, Matt was a lead attorney on the joint bipartisan investigation (with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee) into the security planning and response to the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. In that role, he oversaw the collection review of documents, led interviews and depositions of key government officials, advised the Chairwoman and Committee members on two high-profile joint hearings, and drafted substantial portions of the Committees’ staff report on the attack. He also led oversight of the Capitol Police, Architect of the Capitol, Senate Sergeant at Arms, and executive branch agencies involved in implementing the Committees’ recommendations, including additional legislation and hearings.

Both in Congress and at the firm, Matt has prepared many corporate and nonprofit executives, academics, government officials, and presidential nominees for testimony at legislative, oversight, or nomination hearings before congressional committees, as well as witnesses appearing at congressional depositions and transcribed interviews. He is also an experienced legislative drafter who has composed dozens of bills introduced in Congress and state legislatures, including several that have been enacted into law across multiple policy areas.

In addition to his policy work, Matt advises and represents clients on the full range of political law compliance and enforcement matters involving federal election, campaign finance, lobbying, and government ethics laws, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s “Pay-to-Play” rule, as well as the election and political laws of states and municipalities across the country.

Before law school, Matt worked as a research analyst in the Massachusetts Recovery & Reinvestment Office, where he worked on all aspects of state-level policy, communications, and compliance for federal stimulus funding awarded to Massachusetts under the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009. He has also worked for federal, state, and local political candidates in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Read more about Matthew Shapanka
Show more Show less
Photo of Joshua Schenk Joshua Schenk

Drawing on his prior background in government service, Josh Schenk advises clients on high-profile investigations before Congress and the Department of Justice, regulatory and public policy issues, and election and political law matters.

Prior to joining the firm, Josh served in key White…

Drawing on his prior background in government service, Josh Schenk advises clients on high-profile investigations before Congress and the Department of Justice, regulatory and public policy issues, and election and political law matters.

Prior to joining the firm, Josh served in key White House roles from 2022 to 2025. Most recently, Josh served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor in the White House Chief of Staff’s Office. In this role, he helped to oversee the administration’s domestic policy apparatus and advised President Biden, members of his Cabinet, and senior Administration officials on domestic and economic policy initiatives. His portfolio included regulations and executive action related to artificial intelligence, civil rights, criminal justice reform, education, environmental protection, and healthcare. Previously, he worked in the White House Staff Secretary’s Office, where he prepared the President’s daily briefing materials and traveled with the President on over 50 domestic and international trips.

Beyond his executive branch service, Josh has experience preparing both presidential and vice-presidential candidates for debates and previously clerked for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Josh maintains an active pro bono practice focused on immigration and asylum.

Read more about Joshua Schenk
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Administrative
  • Blog:
    Inside Political Law
  • Organization:
    Covington & Burling LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog logo
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog. All Rights Reserved.
Legal content Portal by LexBlog LexBlog Logo