The U.S. House of Representatives has established rules for the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI), but the actual implementation is largely left to the internal judgment of individual offices and committees. This means that Congress, which is dealing with legislation on digital assets and AI regulation, is itself undergoing a governance test for AI in its document drafting processes.
On September 19, 2024, the House Administration Committee and the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) announced AI policies applicable to the entire House. The House Administration Committee stated that this policy aims to establish a foundational framework for AI use based on cybersecurity and risk management. It also includes procedures for staff to propose AI tools or utilization ideas.
The contentious issue is not the existence of the rules but how they are applied in practice. The official guidance from the House explains that over 500 offices, committees, leadership, and support departments have the authority to independently select products and services necessary for official duties. While technical services must undergo review, the structure is decentralized, allowing each office to choose and use tools according to internal regulations.
The guidance on House cloud services specifies that cloud services used for official duties must be approved by the House Administration Committee. The review criteria include security controls, data management, contract terms, storage of foreign data, AI model integrity, and control of model drift. There is no structure that allows unrestricted use of unapproved AI tools.
However, the perception of enforcement and training remains a separate issue. The POPVOX Foundation noted in a report from March 2026 that the House AI guidelines are restricted to internal access on HouseNet, the internal network. The same document indicated that House staff reported difficulties in finding or understanding the current guidelines.
The internal adoption within the House is already underway. Stephanie Bice, chair of the House Administration Committee's Modernization and Innovation Subcommittee, stated during a hearing on December 17, 2025, that 150 offices had received licenses for Microsoft Copilot, and by January 2026, it would be expanded to all members, committees, leadership, and support departments. She described the introduction of AI as the first step in enhancing the operational efficiency of the House.
According to the POPVOX Foundation, as of March 2026, 6,000 Copilot licenses are available in the House. However, it explained that each office must first establish its internal AI usage policy. This means that even with central policies and approval processes, actual usage standards may vary by office.
There have also been instances where AI was mixed into congressional document work. The office of Representative Anna Paulina Luna faced controversy for leaving references to Claude in the summary of an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act in June 2026. Forbes reported that AI was used in editing the amendment summary rather than the actual text of the bill, and staff were asked to review it.
This case does not imply that the text of the bill was written by AI. The House's Legislative Resource Center explains that the House Legislative Office provides nonpartisan and neutral technical advice to members and committees in drafting bills, resolutions, and amendments. The function of the Legislative Office is to translate policy intent into clear and consistent legal language.
Even if generative AI is used in the summarization and editing stages, weak final review systems can leave erroneous phrases in official document flows. Congressional documents typically involve the interplay of policy judgments, legal language, and procedural documents. A single expression can impact the interpretation of actual authority or implementation procedures, making review responsibility crucial.
The House budget report also did not view AI merely as a productivity tool. The report assessed that AI could enhance the efficiency of legislative bodies while emphasizing the importance of privacy protection and adequate user training. The CAO was instructed to report quarterly on the progress of AI dissemination within the House.
Reactions from policy authorities have diverged into expanding utilization and strengthening control. The House is establishing approval tools and review processes to bring AI adoption into the institutional framework. In contrast, the POPVOX Foundation pointed out that the policy is overly focused on risk mitigation, making it difficult for staff to understand what they can use and under what conditions.
The way the U.S. Congress is accepting AI into its internal operations is not merely an administrative issue for participants in the Korean market. The U.S. Congress is the institution that creates legal language for digital assets, personal data, and AI regulation. Previously, this publication reported that the Clarity Act passed the House, but the Senate procedures and implementation rules remain to be established.
Such legislation becomes the standard that delineates supervisory authority and market obligations. As AI tools enter congressional work, not only the speed of legislative processes but also the quality of documents, data protection, and accountability will become subjects of verification. For the crypto industry, the accuracy of regulatory texts can directly translate into the scope of business and compliance costs.
Currently, the issue confirmed by publicly available materials is not the absence of rules but the distance between rules and on-the-ground enforcement. The House has established AI policies and approval processes and has begun distributing Copilot. In a structure where individual offices have significant autonomy, how to align training, transparency, and review responsibilities remains a challenge for institutional operation.
This content is provided for general informational purposes only and doesn't constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Any events, rewards, online promotions, or related information mentioned herein should not be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or invitation to purchase, sell, trade, or otherwise deal in any crypto assets. Crypto assets are highly volatile and may result in loss. The availability of WEEX services, products, and related events may vary by region. You are responsible for ensuring that your participation is in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations.
















![[Editorial] 'Tokenization of Everything'... Whose Innovation Is It?](/public-static/18_26310349ce.png?format=avif)












