A bill to require the Secretary of Defense to establish the Artificial General Intelligence Steering Committee, and for other purposes.
SB 2604 would require the Secretary of Defense to create an Artificial General Intelligence Steering Committee by April 1, 2026. The committee would be a senior-level Department of Defense body chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with membership drawn from top civilian and military leadership, the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Officer, and other representatives the Secretary deems appropriate.
The committee’s job would be to assess the state of artificial general intelligence and related enabling technologies, examine how adversaries may be pursuing AGI, evaluate military uses and implications, and develop a Department-wide strategy for adoption. That strategy must address ethical and policy guardrails, resource needs, measurable goals, and pathways for public-private partnership, including possible use of purchase commitments, financing arrangements, loans, or loan guarantees. The committee must also analyze threats from adversarial AGI use and recommend counter-AGI strategies. A report to the congressional defense committees would be due by January 31, 2027, with an unclassified version made public, and the authority would sunset on December 31, 2027.
The bill would add a temporary, high-level planning and coordination requirement within the Department of Defense focused specifically on artificial general intelligence. It does not itself authorize a weapons program or mandate procurement, but it would require the Pentagon to study AGI development, military applications, adversary capabilities, and acquisition/transition mechanisms, potentially influencing future defense research, budgeting, and acquisition policy. It would also require public release of the unclassified report and could shape how the Department defines ethical guardrails and partnerships with industry and academia.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text, the measure appears framed as a proactive national security and modernization effort, suggesting likely interest from defense and technology policy advocates. At the same time, its focus on AGI, adversary threats, and novel financing tools indicates a forward-leaning and potentially controversial subject area.
The main points of potential contention are the scope and urgency of the Department of Defense’s role in AGI development, the inclusion of novel funding mechanisms such as purchase commitments, loans, and loan guarantees, and the balance between rapid military adoption and ethical or policy guardrails. Another likely area of debate is whether the bill appropriately distinguishes between near-term artificial intelligence and speculative artificial general intelligence, and whether the Pentagon should be organizing around a technology that remains undefined and uncertain. Concerns may also arise over classified versus public reporting and the extent of private-sector involvement in defense AGI efforts.