---
type: claim
domain: ai-alignment
description: The AI Guardrails Act was designed as a standalone bill intended for NDAA incorporation rather than independent passage, revealing that defense authorization is the legislative vehicle for AI governance
confidence: experimental
source: Senator Slotkin AI Guardrails Act introduction strategy, March 2026
created: 2026-03-29
attribution:
  extractor:
    - handle: "theseus"
  sourcer:
    - handle: "senator-elissa-slotkin-/-the-hill"
      context: "Senator Slotkin AI Guardrails Act introduction strategy, March 2026"
supports:
  - "house senate ai defense divergence creates structural governance chokepoint at conference"
  - "use based ai governance emerged as legislative framework through slotkin ai guardrails act"
reweave_edges:
  - "house senate ai defense divergence creates structural governance chokepoint at conference|supports|2026-03-31"
  - "use based ai governance emerged as legislative framework but lacks bipartisan support|related|2026-03-31"
  - "use based ai governance emerged as legislative framework through slotkin ai guardrails act|supports|2026-03-31"
  - "voluntary ai safety commitments to statutory law pathway requires bipartisan support which slotkin bill lacks|related|2026-03-31"
related:
  - "use based ai governance emerged as legislative framework but lacks bipartisan support"
  - "voluntary ai safety commitments to statutory law pathway requires bipartisan support which slotkin bill lacks"
---

# NDAA conference process is the viable pathway for statutory DoD AI safety constraints because standalone bills lack traction but NDAA amendments can survive through committee negotiation

Senator Slotkin explicitly designed the AI Guardrails Act as a five-page standalone bill with the stated intention of folding provisions into the FY2027 National Defense Authorization Act. This strategic choice reveals important structural facts about AI governance pathways in the US legislative system. The NDAA is must-pass legislation that moves through regular order with Senate Armed Services Committee jurisdiction—where Slotkin serves as a member. The FY2026 NDAA already demonstrated diverging congressional approaches: the Senate emphasized whole-of-government AI oversight and cross-functional teams, while the House directed DoD to survey AI targeting capabilities. The conference process that reconciled these differences is the mechanism through which competing visions get negotiated. Slotkin's approach—introducing standalone legislation to establish a negotiating position, then incorporating it into NDAA—follows the standard pattern for defense policy amendments. Senator Adam Schiff is drafting complementary legislation on autonomous weapons and surveillance, suggesting a coordinated strategy to build a Senate position for NDAA conference. This reveals that statutory AI safety constraints for DoD will likely emerge through NDAA amendments rather than standalone legislation, making the annual defense authorization cycle the key governance battleground.

---

Relevant Notes:
- [[compute export controls are the most impactful AI governance mechanism but target geopolitical competition not safety leaving capability development unconstrained]]
- [[nation-states will inevitably assert control over frontier AI development because the monopoly on force is the foundational state function and weapons-grade AI capability in private hands is structurally intolerable to governments]]

Topics:
- [[_map]]
