Feds to hide mass comments behind single samples in rulemaking

What it does

This bill requires federal agencies to verify that online regulatory comments are submitted by humans (not bots), identify mass comments submitted as part of organized campaigns, and label them publicly. Instead of posting every identical mass comment, agencies may post a single representative sample and note how many identical submissions were received. Agencies must establish policies on handling computer-generated and mass comments within one year, and OMB must issue guidance within 240 days. The bill explicitly states it does not discourage mass comments and does not affect how agencies consider them in rulemaking.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core function is to standardize how federal agencies identify, label, and display mass and computer-generated comments in the rulemaking process. It is a procedural and transparency measure aimed at improving the integrity of regulatory input, not a substantive policy change.

What the text implies

• Agencies gain discretion to reduce the visible volume of mass comments by displaying only one sample per campaign, which may psychologically diminish the perceived public support for a position even though all comments are legally considered.
• The bill does not define 'substantively identical' with precision, giving agencies significant latitude in determining which comments qualify as mass submissions and thus eligible for sample-only display.
• AI-generated comments may become harder to distinguish from human-written ones as language models improve, potentially rendering the verification requirement ineffective over time without ongoing technical updates.
• The rule of construction explicitly preserving agencies' obligation to consider mass comments may create tension with the visual de-emphasis of mass submissions, leading to inconsistent application across agencies.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill creates transparency by labeling mass comments and AI-generated submissions, which helps the public understand the composition of regulatory input and may reduce manipulation of the rulemaking process. However, the mechanism of displaying only a single representative sample of mass comments—rather than all submissions—could reduce the visible weight of organized public participation, potentially dampening the civic impact of grassroots campaigns even though agencies must still consider

Who stands to gain

• software vendors providing comment-verification and mass-comment-identification tools
• consulting firms advising agencies on compliance and policy development

Named in the bill

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), General Services Administration (GSA), eRulemaking Program Management Office, Regulations.gov, Government Accountability Office (GAO), House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, E-Government Act of 2002

Where it stands

• Jul 13, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jul 13, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform”
• Jul 22, 2026 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Jul 22, 2026 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 19”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.