United States - Texas - AI Advisory Council (HB 2060)

Overview

The State of Texas, through the enactment of House Bill 2060 (HB 2060) during its 88th Legislative Session, took a foundational step in addressing the burgeoning impact of artificial intelligence (AI) within its governmental operations. This landmark legislation, signed into law on June 13, 2023, by Governor Greg Abbott, formally established the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council. The primary objective of this council was to undertake a comprehensive study and continuous monitoring of AI systems that were either developed, employed, or procured by various state agencies across Texas. The creation of this advisory body underscored the state's recognition of AI's transformative potential while simultaneously acknowledging the imperative for responsible deployment and robust oversight. It represented a proactive measure to ensure that the integration of advanced technological capabilities into public services would align with ethical considerations, safeguard individual liberties, and mitigate potential risks. The establishment of the council was a clear signal of Texas's commitment to fostering innovation in technology while maintaining a vigilant stance on the societal and governance implications of AI.

Beyond its immediate mandate of studying AI systems, HB 2060 endowed the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council with several critical responsibilities designed to lay the groundwork for future AI governance in Texas. These responsibilities included evaluating the necessity of a dedicated state code of ethics specifically tailored for AI systems operating within government. Such a code would aim to provide clear moral and operational guidelines for agencies, ensuring that AI applications adhere to principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability. Furthermore, the council was tasked with a detailed review of automated decision systems, meticulously examining their potential effects on the constitutional and legal rights, duties, and privileges of Texas residents. This review extended to a thorough assessment of both the prospective benefits and the inherent liabilities or risks that the state might encounter through the implementation of these automated systems. The council was also empowered to formulate and recommend administrative actions that state agencies could adopt without requiring further legislative authorization, thereby facilitating agile and responsive adjustments to AI policies. This multifaceted approach highlighted the legislature's foresight in anticipating the complex challenges and opportunities presented by AI, positioning the council as a pivotal entity in shaping Texas's technological future.

Definitions

House Bill 2060 meticulously defined several key terms crucial for understanding the scope and application of its provisions, particularly those related to artificial intelligence and automated decision-making within state government. Central to the Act is the definition of an "Algorithm," which is described as a computerized procedure consisting of a set of steps used to accomplish a determined task. This foundational definition underpins the understanding of how AI systems operate at a basic level. The Act then proceeds to define "Artificial Intelligence Systems" more broadly as systems capable of perceiving an environment through data acquisition and processing, interpreting the derived information to take actions or imitate intelligent behavior given a specific goal, and learning and adapting behavior by analyzing how the environment is affected by prior actions. This comprehensive definition captures the dynamic and evolving nature of AI technologies, encompassing both their data-driven perception and their adaptive learning capabilities. These definitions were essential for clearly delineating the technological landscape that the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council was mandated to oversee and regulate, ensuring a common understanding across state agencies and stakeholders.

Further refining the scope of its regulatory intent, HB 2060 introduced specific definitions for different categories of automated decision systems. An "Automated Decision System" is broadly characterized as an algorithm, potentially incorporating machine learning or other artificial intelligence techniques, that utilizes data-based analytics to make or support governmental decisions, judgments, or conclusions. This definition is critical as it identifies the specific applications of AI that directly influence governmental functions and public outcomes. The Act further distinguishes between "Automated Final Decision Systems," which are automated decision systems that render final decisions, judgments, or conclusions without any human intervention, and "Automated Support Decision Systems," which provide information to inform the final decision, judgment, or conclusion of a human decision maker. This distinction is vital for understanding the varying degrees of autonomy and human oversight in AI-driven governmental processes, informing the council's assessment of risks and the development of ethical guidelines. Finally, the term "Council" is explicitly defined as the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council established under Subchapter S, Chapter 2054, Government Code, unequivocally identifying the body responsible for carrying out the Act's provisions. These precise definitions provided a clear legal framework for the council's operations and for the state's engagement with AI technologies.

Governance and Institutional Framework

The governance structure established by House Bill 2060 centered on the creation of the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council, designed as a temporary yet impactful body to guide Texas's initial foray into AI regulation. The council was composed of seven members, strategically selected to ensure a diverse range of expertise and perspectives. This composition included one member from the Texas House of Representatives, appointed by the Speaker of the House, and one member from the Texas Senate, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, ensuring legislative representation and insight. Additionally, four professionals with specialized expertise in various areas impacted by AI were appointed, bringing critical academic and industry knowledge to the council. These experts were chosen for their deep understanding of areas such as ethics, law enforcement, constitutional and legal rights, and AI technology itself. The Executive Director of the Department of Information Resources also served on the council, providing crucial administrative and technical insight into state IT infrastructure and operations. This carefully curated membership aimed to foster a holistic approach to AI governance, blending legislative oversight with technical, ethical, and practical expertise to address the complex challenges and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence.

The institutional framework envisioned by HB 2060 positioned the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council as a key advisory and monitoring body within the state's existing governmental structure. While the council itself was established with a defined lifespan, its duties were designed to produce enduring recommendations and insights that would inform future legislative and administrative actions regarding AI. The council was mandated to operate under the broader umbrella of the Government Code, specifically within Chapter 2054, which pertains to information resources. This placement underscored the state's recognition of AI as a critical component of information technology and data management. The council was required to meet at the call of its co-chairs and could conduct meetings in person or remotely, ensuring flexibility in its operations. Its primary function was not to enforce regulations directly but to provide a comprehensive study and monitoring function, culminating in a legislative report that would serve as a foundational document for subsequent policy development. This framework emphasized a research-driven and advisory approach, allowing the state to gather essential data and expert opinions before potentially enacting more prescriptive regulations. The temporary nature of the council, with its expiration set for January 1, 2025, indicated an initial phase of exploration and assessment, paving the way for more permanent or evolved governance structures, such as the later established Public Sector Artificial Intelligence Systems Advisory Board under the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act.

Key Focus Areas

The Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council, as mandated by Texas HB 2060, concentrated its efforts on several pivotal areas to comprehensively understand and guide the state's engagement with AI. A primary focus was the meticulous study and continuous monitoring of all artificial intelligence systems that were either developed, employed, or procured by Texas state agencies. This broad scope ensured that the council would gain a holistic view of AI's presence and application across the diverse landscape of state government functions, from administrative tasks to public service delivery. The objective was to identify where AI was being utilized, the specific purposes it served, and the technologies underpinning these applications. This foundational understanding was crucial for assessing the current state of AI integration and for anticipating future trends and challenges. By maintaining a vigilant watch over these systems, the council aimed to proactively identify emerging issues and inform policy decisions that would ensure responsible and effective AI deployment, aligning technological advancement with public interest and governmental efficiency.

In addition to monitoring current AI usage, HB 2060 directed the council to delve into critical ethical and societal implications of AI, particularly concerning fundamental rights and potential biases. A significant key focus area was the assessment of the need for a state code of ethics specifically for AI systems in state government. This involved exploring principles such as transparency, accountability, fairness, and human oversight in the context of AI-driven decision-making. The council was also tasked with reviewing automated decision systems inventory reports submitted by state agencies, with a particular emphasis on evaluating the effect of these systems on the constitutional or legal rights, duties, or privileges of Texas residents. This included scrutinizing potential biases, discriminatory outcomes, and impacts on privacy interests. Furthermore, the council was to analyze the potential benefits, liabilities, and risks associated with implementing automated decision systems, aiming to strike a balance between innovation and protection. The findings from these critical assessments were intended to form the basis for policy recommendations designed to safeguard Texans from detrimental AI impacts, including discrimination, and to promote an ethical framework for state agencies' use of AI. This forward-looking approach underscored the state's commitment to responsible AI development that prioritizes citizen welfare and fundamental rights.

Implementation Framework

The implementation framework for House Bill 2060 primarily revolved around the operationalization of the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council and the establishment of a reporting mechanism for state agencies. A crucial component of this framework was the requirement for each agency within the executive and legislative branches of state government, utilizing state-appropriated funds, to submit a comprehensive inventory report of all automated decision systems under development, employment, or procurement. This mandate ensured a systematic cataloging of AI applications across the state, providing the council with the necessary data to perform its oversight and study functions. The council, in consultation with the Department of Information Resources (DIR), was responsible for prescribing the specific form, contents, and manner of submission for these inventory reports by March 1, 2024. This structured reporting mechanism was designed to standardize the information gathered, making it comparable and actionable for the council's analysis. It represented a practical approach to gather foundational intelligence on the state's AI landscape, enabling informed decision-making and policy formulation.

Beyond data collection, the implementation framework outlined the council's responsibilities for analysis and recommendation. The Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council was tasked with reviewing the submitted inventory reports, specifically examining the capabilities of the systems, the types of data inputs used, how data was generated, collected, and processed, and whether the systems had undergone independent, third-party testing for bias. This detailed review process was intended to identify potential vulnerabilities, ethical concerns, and areas requiring further scrutiny or intervention. Based on its findings, the council was mandated to recommend administrative actions that state agencies could implement without requiring additional legislative authorization. This provision was critical for enabling prompt and flexible responses to emerging AI-related issues. The culmination of this implementation framework was the requirement for the council to submit a comprehensive report to the Legislature by December 2024. This report was to outline the council's findings, assess the impact of the state's AI use on citizens, and propose policy recommendations aimed at protecting privacy interests, preventing discrimination, and promoting an ethical framework for AI use by state agencies. This structured cycle of information gathering, analysis, and recommendation formed the backbone of HB 2060's strategy for initial AI governance.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The monitoring and evaluation mechanisms embedded within House Bill 2060 were central to the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council's mission of ensuring responsible AI deployment across Texas state agencies. A cornerstone of this framework was the requirement for all state agencies in the executive and legislative branches to submit detailed inventory reports of their automated decision systems. These reports were not merely a list of technologies but mandated specific disclosures, including the name and vendor of each system, its capabilities, the types of data inputs utilized, and critically, how that data was generated, collected, and processed. This granular level of detail allowed the council to track the proliferation and nature of AI systems, providing a real-time snapshot of the state's AI footprint. Furthermore, agencies were required to indicate whether their automated decision systems had been subjected to independent, third-party testing, especially for bias. This particular requirement highlighted a proactive approach to identifying and mitigating algorithmic discrimination, a significant ethical concern in AI development. The systematic collection and review of these reports formed the primary method for the council to continuously monitor AI usage and its potential implications.

The evaluation component of HB 2060's framework extended beyond mere data collection to a qualitative assessment of AI's societal and ethical impacts. The Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council was specifically tasked with evaluating the effects of automated decision systems on the constitutional and legal rights, duties, or privileges of Texas residents. This involved a critical examination of how AI systems might influence due process, privacy, and non-discrimination. The council was also mandated to assess the potential benefits, liabilities, or risks that the state could incur as a result of implementing these systems. This dual focus on both positive and negative externalities ensured a balanced evaluation, considering both the efficiency gains and the potential for unintended consequences. The culmination of these monitoring and evaluation efforts was the council's comprehensive report to the Legislature by December 2024. This report was expected to synthesize all findings, offer an assessment of AI's impact on citizens' liberty, finances, livelihood, and privacy interests, and propose policy recommendations. These recommendations were designed to protect Texans from detrimental AI impacts, ensure freedom from AI-related discrimination, and promote an ethical framework for AI use by state agencies, thereby guiding future legislative actions and administrative policies.

Penalties, Liability, and Appeals

House Bill 2060, establishing the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council, primarily focused on the study, monitoring, and recommendation aspects of AI governance rather than direct enforcement mechanisms or the imposition of penalties, liability, or appeals processes. As an advisory body, the council's role was to identify potential risks and recommend administrative actions or legislative updates, rather than to adjudicate violations or levy sanctions. The Act itself did not stipulate specific penalties for non-compliance with the council's recommendations or for issues identified through the agency inventory reports. Instead, the legislative intent was to gather comprehensive information and expert insights to inform the development of future, more robust regulatory frameworks that might include such provisions. Therefore, within the direct scope of HB 2060, there were no explicit clauses detailing fines, sanctions, or criminal penalties for AI-related misconduct by state agencies or their vendors. The emphasis was on proactive assessment and guidance, aiming to prevent issues through informed policy rather than through punitive measures for initial failures.

The absence of explicit penalty and liability provisions within HB 2060 reflects its foundational nature as an initial step in AI governance. The council's mandate to review automated decision systems for their effect on constitutional or legal rights and to evaluate potential liabilities or risks was designed to identify areas where future legislation might need to establish such mechanisms. For instance, if the council identified instances where AI systems infringed upon citizens' rights, its recommendations would likely highlight the need for legal recourse or accountability frameworks. Similarly, while the bill required agencies to report on whether their systems were tested for bias, it did not prescribe penalties for systems found to be biased. This approach allowed the state to first understand the landscape of AI use and its associated challenges before implementing potentially complex and far-reaching enforcement structures. The subsequent "Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Act," signed in June 2025, represents a more advanced stage of regulation, which does include provisions for civil fines and enforcement by the Attorney General, suggesting an evolution from the purely advisory role of the HB 2060 council to a more prescriptive regulatory environment. This progression underscores that HB 2060 was a critical precursor, laying the intellectual and informational groundwork for later, more enforceable AI legislation.

Relationship to Other Instruments

House Bill 2060, by establishing the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council, served as a foundational legislative instrument within the broader context of Texas's evolving approach to technology and governance. It did not directly amend or repeal existing laws but rather created a new subchapter within Chapter 2054 of the Government Code, specifically focused on information resources. This placement indicated that the legislature viewed AI governance as an integral part of the state's overall information technology strategy. The Act's provisions, particularly the requirement for state agencies to submit inventory reports on their automated decision systems, were designed to complement existing governmental reporting and transparency mandates. While HB 2060 itself did not introduce new data protection or privacy laws, the council's mandate to assess the impact of AI systems on the privacy interests of Texans implicitly linked its work to existing data protection frameworks and constitutional rights. The council's recommendations were intended to inform future legislative action, suggesting a dynamic relationship where its findings would influence the development of new laws or the amendment of existing ones to better address AI-specific challenges.

The most significant relationship of HB 2060 to other instruments is its role as a precursor to more comprehensive AI legislation in Texas. While the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council established by HB 2060 was set to expire on January 1, 2025, its work directly informed subsequent legislative efforts. Notably, the "Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Act," signed into law in June 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, builds upon the initial assessments and recommendations generated by the HB 2060 council. This newer Act establishes a new Public Sector Artificial Intelligence Systems Advisory Board, indicating an evolution from the initial temporary council to a more permanent oversight body. Furthermore, the 2025 Act introduces more explicit regulations for both public and private sectors, including prohibited AI practices, disclosure requirements for government agencies using AI, and provisions for enforcement and civil penalties. This demonstrates that HB 2060 was not an isolated piece of legislation but a critical first step in a phased approach to AI governance in Texas, providing the necessary intelligence and groundwork for the development of more robust and enforceable regulatory instruments. The transition from an advisory council focused on study to a governance act with enforcement powers highlights the continuous and iterative nature of legislative responses to rapidly advancing technologies like AI.

International Alignment

House Bill 2060, as a state-level initiative in Texas, primarily focused on domestic AI governance within the context of state agencies and the rights of Texas residents. Therefore, its direct provisions did not explicitly address international alignment or cross-border cooperation in AI regulation. However, the underlying principles guiding the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council's mandate, such as the assessment of ethical guidelines, the review of automated decision systems for bias, and the protection of fundamental rights like privacy, resonate with broader global discussions and emerging international frameworks on responsible AI. Many international bodies, including the OECD, UNESCO, and the European Union, have emphasized similar principles in their AI recommendations and regulations. The council's task to assess the need for a state code of ethics for AI, for example, aligns with global efforts to develop ethical AI principles and guidelines that transcend national borders. While HB 2060 did not mandate specific international collaborations, the insights gained from the council's work could indirectly contribute to broader international dialogues by showcasing a state-level approach to AI governance within the federal system of the United States.

Despite its domestic focus, the establishment of the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council by HB 2060 can be seen as part of a growing global trend among jurisdictions to proactively address the governance of AI. As AI technologies are inherently global in their development and impact, even localized regulatory efforts contribute to the larger international landscape of AI policy. The council's work in identifying best practices, assessing risks, and recommending safeguards for AI use in government mirrored similar initiatives in other countries and sub-national entities. The subsequent "Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Act" of 2025, which introduces more prescriptive regulations and a new advisory board, further positions Texas within this global movement. While this Act also does not explicitly detail international alignment, its provisions regarding prohibited AI practices, data privacy, and non-discrimination reflect internationally recognized concerns and principles. The continuous evolution of AI legislation in Texas, starting with the advisory council, demonstrates a commitment to responsible AI that, while tailored to the state's specific context, contributes to the broader global discourse on how to effectively govern artificial intelligence in an increasingly interconnected world.

Implementation Timeline

Compliance Checklist

Sources and References