House operates under separate AI approval framework
Senate staff have access to only three basic AI chat interfaces — Microsoft Copilot Chat, Gemini Chat for Google Workspace Enterprise Plus, and OpenAI ChatGPT Enterprise — and not to more advanced “agentic” tools that can complete tasks autonomously, according to an internal communication obtained by NPR. The restrictions come as a majority of the American public wants Congress to regulate artificial intelligence and as AI industry leaders have issued their own warnings about the technology’s risks.
The gap between Congress’s regulatory ambitions and its own limited use of AI has drawn criticism from technology industry advocates and outside governance experts, who argue that writing effective rules for artificial intelligence requires firsthand experience with the tools. At least one senator has already sought a workaround: Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, said his office operates an AI “staffer” named Albert despite the chamber’s deployment restrictions.
According to the spring communication from the sergeant at arms — the Senate officer who oversees cybersecurity in the chamber — staff have access to the three approved chat interfaces at no cost to their offices. The sergeant at arms has not authorized more advanced tools that can power “agents” to complete tasks autonomously, including OpenAI’s Codex or Anthropic’s Claude Code and Cowork. The approved platforms cannot independently access internal Senate drives, shared folders, email, Teams chats, or other Senate resources, according to the rules.
Advanced AI tools are being vetted for specific use cases, according to a Senate staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the chamber’s cybersecurity policies. No timeline was offered for that work.
Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank focused on strengthening government institutions, said data-exfiltration concerns are real but not unique to advanced AI tools. “The use of tools and technologies that have the possibility of exfiltrating data elsewhere are a significant risk for the Senate and for the House and elsewhere,” Schuman said. “This is also true with even more prosaic tools, right — the use of Google documents or email.” He added: “But those concerns are not the best reason for the non-approval of certain technologies. I think people want to do better, but the incentives of the way the institution is set up is a drag on progress.”
Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of the center-left tech industry policy group Chamber of Progress, argued that the restrictions are slowing lawmakers’ ability to engage with the technology they are charged with regulating. “Congress, unfortunately, has always lagged behind,” Kovacevich said. “Right now you’ve got lawmakers writing rules for technology they, in many cases, never even used and that’s a problem.” He added: “I think security is often a pretext for slower government agencies and businesses to use. The reality is that you’ve got Fortune 500 firms who have plenty of sensitive customer information and data using all these tools and using them successfully. So I tend to think those arguments are sort of pretextual objections.”
The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, which oversees the sergeant at arms, did not address specific details of the policy in response to NPR questions. A committee spokesperson said the policies are designed to “protect Senate data and include stronger security and contractual requirements.” “While Senate offices should have access to AI tools, subject to individual members and committee policies, it’s critical that these powerful tools are adopted with adequate safety and security checks to ensure that the Senate’s constitutionally protected data is secure,” the spokesperson said.
Across the Capitol, House AI use is overseen by the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, a separate body. A House staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss chamber cybersecurity policy said House rules outline specific use cases in which AI use is permissible and that tools from Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic are approved in various scenarios. The CAO office did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Schuman suggested that if Senate leaders decided there was a need to access more powerful AI technologies, the chamber could expedite approvals. “Their senior staff can have conversations and say, ‘we really want you to expedite this, we think that there’s value here and you should do it.’ And the Sergeant at Arms is probably going to be responsive to that,” he said. “But it’s also worth keeping in mind, this is a political institution. The sergeant at arms is going to be more reticent because they don’t want to have the finger pointed at them in case things go wrong, so they have an incentive to put the brakes on most things.”
Some offices have moved ahead with AI tools on an ad hoc basis. Moreno, the Ohio Republican, told technology news show MTS Live last week that his office uses an AI “staffer” named Albert. “He works long hours, doesn’t require a lot of pay, but it’s great for research, things that would normally take somebody a long period of time to kind of vet,” Moreno said. “We use it quite a bit. I personally would like to be using it a lot more, but unfortunately the Senate has some crazy rules about how we’re allowed to deploy or not allowed to deploy.” Moreno added: “Right now, the Senate prohibits us from integrating outside systems into the Senate’s, but I’m hoping that, soon in fact, that they get that done next year.” Moreno’s office did not respond to an inquiry about how Albert is powered and whether it complies with Senate rules.
Kovacevich criticized lawmakers who refuse to use the technology they are being called upon to regulate, including one senior Democrat who told Axios last week that “you don’t need to do drugs like heroin to know they should be regulated.” “Well, that’s true, but nobody thinks heroin has an upside to be preserved,” Kovacevich said. “So if your only mental model of the technology is the harm, you’re probably going to write a bill that’s all brakes and no steering wheel.”