Create a presumption that AI systems have the same state of mind a person taking the same actions would have had, preventing developers from escaping liability by arguing AI cannot form intent.

Lori Trahan · Massachusetts · Democratic

policy impact 0.62 specificity 0.88 extraction confidence 88%

Commitment kind: outcome. Promised action: Advance legislation resolving how courts treat AI intent in misconduct cases.. Promised outcome: Courts would presume AI systems had the same state of mind as a person taking the same actions, and developers could not argue AI is incapable of intent.. Deadline: unknown; not assumed expired. As U.S. Representative for Massachusetts' 3rd District, Trahan released a discussion draft of the CLAIM Act in the 2026 congressional term.

Occurrences

Resolves uncertainty around AI and intent. Courts would presume an AI system acted with the state of mind a person taking the same actions would have had. Developers could not argue that AI is incapable of intent.

The CLAIM Act would address intent standards by requiring courts to presume an AI system had the same state of mind as a person taking the same actions.

Trahan Unveils CLAIM Act Discussion Draft to Hold AI Developers Accountable for Harms Caused by Their Agents | U.S. Representative Lori Trahan
primary · press_release · model gpt-5.5

Evidence

unverified · Source version 91493 · locator unknown

Today, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (MA-03), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, released a discussion draft of the Clear Liability for Artificial Intelligence Misconduct (CLAIM) Act.

Unverified model/legacy excerpt; not proof. AI summary (separate from source): Within the lookback window, Trahan released the CLAIM Act as a discussion draft rather than securing enactment; this is concrete legislative effort toward the commitment but not delivery.

unresolved same_term A for effort

Trahan Unveils CLAIM Act Discussion Draft to Hold AI Developers Accountable for Harms Caused by Their Agents | U.S. Representative Lori Trahan
primary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 96%

verified · Source version 91493 · locator 2797

Courts would presume an AI system acted with the state of mind a person taking the same actions would have had. Developers could not argue that AI is incapable of intent.

Fetched verbatim passage. AI summary (separate from source): The official release describes the exact promised mechanism: a human-analog mental-state presumption and no defense that AI lacks intent.

unresolved same_term A for effort

Trahan Unveils CLAIM Act Discussion Draft to Hold AI Developers Accountable for Harms Caused by Their Agents | U.S. Representative Lori Trahan
primary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 97%

unverified · Source version 91496 · locator unknown

there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the artificial intelligence system satisfies the relevant mental state if the finder of fact determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a natural person who, under circumstances similar to those of the artificial intelligence system, took actions similar to those taken by the artificial intelligence system would have acted with the relevant mental state.

Unverified model/legacy excerpt; not proof. AI summary (separate from source): The draft bill text contains the promised rebuttable presumption for AI mental state, showing a concrete legislative proposal aligned with the commitment.

unresolved same_term A for effort

claim_act_final.pdf
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 95%

unverified · Source version 91496 · locator unknown

For purposes of this Act, it shall not be a defense that artificial intelligence systems are incapable of having mental states.

Unverified model/legacy excerpt; not proof. AI summary (separate from source): The draft bill directly addresses the promised bar on developers escaping liability by arguing AI cannot form intent, but it remains draft text.

unresolved same_term A for effort

claim_act_final.pdf
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 96%

unverified · Source version 91496 · locator unknown

This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to conduct occurring, and injuries arising, on or after that date.

Unverified model/legacy excerpt; not proof. AI summary (separate from source): The draft itself states the rule would take effect only upon enactment; no enactment is documented in the provided official record, so the commitment remains unresolved.

unresolved same_term A for effort

claim_act_final.pdf
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 90%

verified · Source version 91502 · locator 167

The office of Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) welcomes feedback on the discussion draft of the CLAIM (Clear Liability for Artificial Intelligence Misconduct) Act.

Fetched verbatim passage. AI summary (separate from source): The accompanying official background document confirms the measure is still in stakeholder-feedback discussion-draft stage, supporting unresolved status while documenting effort.

unresolved same_term A for effort

claima_act_background.pdf
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 94%

Assessments

Public state: pending As of 2026-10-14 · verified · . Original AI recommendation (not independently established): unresolved. unknown A for effort

The verified commitment promises an enacted legal outcome: courts would apply an AI mental-state presumption and developers could not defend on the theory that AI lacks intent. The verified evidence shows Trahan's office was seeking feedback on a CLAIM Act discussion draft, which is material effort by the candidate's office, but it does not verify enactment or an operative court rule. With no deadline expired as of 2026-10-14, a discussion draft is not enough to count as delivered or partial outcome delivery.

provider codex_cli · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 94%