District of Columbia AI Laws and Regulation (2026)

The District of Columbia regulates AI primarily through Mayor's Order 2024-028, which requires all DC government agencies to align AI deployments with six core values including safety, transparency, and accountability. The Stop Discrimination by Algorithms Act, which would ban discriminatory algorithmic decision-making, has been proposed since 2021 but has not yet been enacted.

The District of Columbia occupies a unique position in the national AI regulatory landscape. As the seat of the federal government, DC is both shaped by and responsive to federal AI policy while simultaneously developing its own local governance frameworks. Although the District has not enacted comprehensive AI legislation, it has taken significant executive action through Mayor Bowser's AI values framework and has repeatedly considered algorithmic discrimination legislation.

This guide covers DC's executive AI governance framework, pending legislation, deepfake protections, and how the District's unique federal relationship affects AI regulation. If you have specific questions about how these laws apply to your situation, consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Mayor's Order 2024-028: DC's AI Values Framework

On February 8, 2024, Mayor Muriel Bowser signed Mayor's Order 2024-028, titled "Articulating DC's Artificial Intelligence Values and Establishing Artificial Intelligence Strategic Benchmarks." This order established the nation's first comprehensive responsible AI framework for a major city government.

Six Core AI Values

The Order requires all DC government agencies to align their AI deployments with six core values:

1. Clear Benefit to the People: AI tools must demonstrably improve services or outcomes for DC residents
2. Safety and Equity: AI systems must operate safely and not produce inequitable outcomes across communities
3. Accountability: Clear lines of responsibility must exist for AI-driven decisions and outcomes
4. Transparency: The use of AI must be disclosed and understandable to affected residents
5. Sustainability: AI deployments must consider long-term resource and environmental impacts
6. Privacy and Cybersecurity: AI systems must protect personal data and maintain cybersecurity standards

Before deploying any AI tool, agencies must verify alignment with these values, assess potential impacts, consider mitigation controls, and document their review process.

Source: Mayor Bowser's Office, AI Values Order

AI Taskforce

The Order created the DC AI Taskforce, led by the Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). The Taskforce comprises five District government employees with expertise across AI and technology law, AI enablement, data science, and software development.

The Taskforce's responsibilities include:

• Examining the District's current internal AI governance posture
• Supporting agency leadership in meeting prescribed AI Strategic Benchmarks
• Providing the Mayor with advice and recommendations on responsible AI use
• Coordinating agency efforts across government

The AI Taskforce is set to sunset on December 31, 2026, unless extended.

Agency AI Strategic Plans

The Order established a phased rollout for agency-specific AI strategic plans:

AI Values Alignment Advisory Group (AIVA)

The Order also established the AIVA, which brings community and stakeholder perspectives into the District's AI governance process. This public engagement mechanism ensures that residents and advocacy organizations have a voice in how the government deploys AI technologies.

Source: DC OCTO, AI Values and Strategic Plan

Mandatory AI Training for Government Workforce

DC became the first major U.S. city to require responsible AI training for its entire government workforce. Mayor Bowser announced the mandate, which applies to all DC government employees and contractors.

Training Details

The training program, delivered in partnership with InnovateUS, consists of two self-paced online courses that take less than two hours to complete. All employees and contractors must complete the training within 90 days of notification.

The curriculum covers:

• Safe and effective use of generative AI tools
• When AI may appropriately support government work
• When human judgment, oversight, and review are required
• Employee and contractor accountability for AI use
• The "humans in the loop" approach to AI decision-making

The training reinforces that employees and contractors remain accountable for the appropriate use of AI and that human oversight is required for consequential decisions.

Source: DC OCTO, Mandatory AI Training Announcement

DC's AI/ML Governance Policy

The Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) published an AI/ML Governance Policy that establishes guidelines for responsible AI use within District government operations.

Key Policy Requirements

The policy applies to three categories of government personnel: users, developers, and administrators. Its core requirements include:

• Approved tools only: Personnel may only use AI and ML platforms approved by OCTO or their agency's IT division
• Data protection: Strict guidelines govern the use of non-enterprise or free AI platforms, with emphasis on preventing unauthorized data exposure
• Security compliance: All AI tools must meet the District's cybersecurity standards
• Regulatory compliance: AI deployments must comply with applicable laws and regulations

The policy specifically addresses the risks posed by free or non-enterprise AI tools, where government data could inadvertently be exposed to third-party systems without adequate security protections.

Source: DC OCTO, AI/ML Governance Policy

Current Government AI Projects

The District has deployed several AI applications across government agencies:

• CORA (Case Operations Resource Assistant): An AI-powered chatbot supporting the Child and Family Services Information System (CCWIS)
• DC Compass: An AI chatbot helping residents navigate the city's open data resources
• Rent Registry AI: Uses artificial intelligence to automate document review processes for the rent registry system

The Bowser Administration also announced a first-of-its-kind AI pilot program developed in partnership with the MIT Governance Lab and Stanford Digital Economy Lab, further establishing DC as a leader in responsible government AI adoption.

The Stop Discrimination by Algorithms Act (Pending)

The most significant AI-related legislation in DC's legislative history is the Stop Discrimination by Algorithms Act, which has been introduced in multiple Council sessions but has not yet been enacted.

Legislative History

The bill was first introduced in 2021 by then-Attorney General Karl Racine. It was reintroduced as B25-0114 in February 2023 during the 25th Council session. Despite public hearings and significant advocacy support, the bill did not advance to a vote during either session.

Proposed Requirements

If enacted, the Act would impose three main obligations:

1. Prohibition on Discriminatory Algorithms

Companies and organizations would be prohibited from using algorithms that produce biased or discriminatory results in decisions about education, employment, housing, public accommodations, and services including credit, healthcare, and insurance.

2. Annual Audit Requirements

Companies would be required to perform annual audits to ensure their algorithmic processing does not discriminate directly or produce disparate impacts on protected groups. These audits would need to be conducted by third parties and include reporting requirements.

3. Transparency Obligations

Companies would be required to inform consumers about what personal information they collect and how that information is used in algorithmic decision-making.

Protected Characteristics

The Act references the DC Human Rights Act, which protects 23 characteristics including race, sex, gender identity, disability, religion, age, sexual orientation, and national origin. This is one of the broadest sets of protected characteristics in any proposed algorithmic discrimination law.

Penalties

Violations would carry civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each individual violation.

Current Status

The bill has not been reintroduced in the current 26th Council session (2025-2026) as of this writing; the AI bill pending before the Council in that period, B26-0491, is a narrower education measure covered below. However, the growing national momentum around AI regulation and the continued advocacy from organizations like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law suggest that some form of algorithmic accountability legislation could resurface.

Source: DC Office of the Attorney General

Deepfake and Synthetic Media Protections

The District of Columbia does not have a DC-specific deepfake law. However, DC residents are protected by federal legislation and existing local laws.

Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act

As a federal district, DC residents are directly covered by the TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed by President Trump on May 19, 2025. This federal law:

• Criminalizes knowingly publishing non-consensual intimate images, whether authentic or AI-generated, and threatening to publish an authentic intimate image: up to 2 years imprisonment (3 years when a minor is involved)
• Separately criminalizes threatening to publish an AI-generated or digitally forged intimate image, at a lower penalty: up to 18 months imprisonment (30 months when a minor is involved), under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223(h)(6)
• Requires platforms to remove such content within 48 hours of notice from victims
• Requires platforms to establish notice-and-removal processes by May 19, 2026

Existing DC Protections

The District's non-consensual intimate image statutes are D.C. Code Sections 22-3052 (unlawful disclosure), 22-3053 (first-degree unlawful publication), and 22-3054 (second-degree unlawful publication). Each makes it unlawful to disclose or publish a sexual image of another identified or identifiable person without that person's consent.

Those provisions most likely do not reach a wholly synthetic deepfake. D.C. Code Section 22-3051(7) defines a "sexual image" as "a photograph, video, or other visual recording of an unclothed private area or of sexual conduct." A recording-based definition describes, on its face, an image captured of a real person, not an image an AI system fabricated. DC has not amended these sections to add digital forgeries the way many states have.

That gap is why the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, which expressly covers AI-generated and digitally forged intimate images, is the operative protection for DC residents targeted by synthetic intimate imagery.

Source: D.C. Law Library, D.C. Code Sec. 22-3051 (Definitions)

Election Deepfakes

DC does not have a specific law addressing deepfakes in political campaigns or elections. Given the District's unique status and the concentration of political activity within its borders, this gap is notable. Federal campaign regulations and general fraud statutes provide some coverage, but DC lacks the targeted election deepfake provisions that many states have enacted.

AI in the DC Courts

The DC Courts have taken a thoughtful approach to artificial intelligence, establishing clear boundaries between appropriate and prohibited AI uses in the judicial system.

AI Strategic Planning Roadmap

In June 2025, the DC Courts' AI Task Force released an AI Strategic Planning Roadmap that provides a structured plan for:

• Identifying beneficial uses of AI in court operations
• Evaluating whether proposed AI applications should be approved
• Training court staff on AI capabilities and limitations
• Setting rules governing AI use in the judicial system

Internal AI Use Policy

In July 2025, the DC Courts shared an Internal AI Use Policy with all staff. The policy explains how AI should be used, sets rules for safe and fair operation, and clarifies staff responsibilities when using AI tools.

Critical Safeguard: No AI in Judicial Decisions

The most significant aspect of the DC Courts' AI policy is a firm prohibition: judges do not use AI to write opinions or make decisions. This safeguard preserves the integrity of judicial reasoning and ensures that human judgment remains central to the administration of justice.

Planned AI Applications

The Courts are exploring AI tools for operational efficiency, including:

• Website chatbots to help the public navigate court services
• Administrative task automation
• Basic legal research assistance for staff

All AI tools undergo careful review with a focus on transparency, ethics, and accountability before deployment.

Source: DC Courts, AI and the DC Courts

Federal AI Policy and the District

Executive Order 14365: Unique Impact on DC

The December 2025 executive order on AI state preemption has a distinctive impact on the District of Columbia. Unlike states, which have independent legislative authority, DC's laws are subject to Congressional review under the Home Rule Act. This means that federal efforts to preempt state AI laws could have an even more direct effect on DC's ability to enact AI regulation.

However, the practical impact remains limited. Executive orders cannot independently preempt local laws without congressional action. DC's executive-branch AI governance framework (Mayor's Order 2024-028) is an internal government policy rather than legislation regulating the private sector, making it less susceptible to federal preemption arguments.

Federal Agency Presence

The concentration of federal agencies in DC creates a unique AI regulatory environment. Many federal agencies are simultaneously developing their own AI governance frameworks under various executive orders and congressional mandates. This means DC residents interact with AI systems governed by both local and federal rules, creating a layered regulatory landscape.

AI in Employment in the District

While DC has not enacted AI-specific employment legislation, the District's existing legal framework provides significant protections against AI-driven discrimination in hiring and employment.

DC Human Rights Act

The DC Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on 23 protected characteristics in employment, housing, and public accommodations. These protections apply regardless of whether decisions are made by humans or AI systems. Employers using AI tools for hiring, promotions, or other employment decisions must ensure their systems do not produce discriminatory outcomes.

Proposed Algorithmic Audit Requirements

The Stop Discrimination by Algorithms Act, if enacted, would require employers to conduct annual third-party audits of AI systems used in employment decisions. Although this legislation has not passed, it signals the direction of DC's policy thinking on AI in the workplace.

Federal Employment Protections

DC employers are also subject to federal anti-discrimination laws (Title VII, ADA, ADEA) that apply to AI-driven employment decisions.

AI in District Schools

Education is where the District's most recent AI activity has landed.

Artificial Intelligence Literacy in Education Act of 2025 (Pending)

Councilmember Pinto introduced B26-0491, the Artificial Intelligence Literacy in Education Act of 2025, on November 17, 2025. The Council referred the bill to the Committee of the Whole and circulated it on December 2, 2025. It has not been enacted, so it imposes no obligations on schools today.

Source: Council of the District of Columbia, legislation introduced November 17-21, 2025

OSSE AI Model Policy for Staff Use

On September 1, 2026, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) released an AI Model Policy for Staff Use for local education agencies. Adoption is voluntary. OSSE states that the policy is offered as guidance rather than legal advice and is not required to be adopted, and that local education agencies may tailor it to their own needs.

The model policy sorts uses into a stoplight framework. Its red category, where the policy says AI should not be used, covers high-stakes decisions that demand human judgment, including physical surveillance of students and staff, student discipline decisions, evaluations of teacher performance, and determining eligibility for individualized education programs (IEPs) or Section 504 accommodations. Reviewing and grading student work falls in the yellow category, meaning limited use with safeguards rather than a prohibition.

Source: OSSE, AI Model Policy for Staff Use

Key Dates and Timeline

More District of Columbia Laws

Explore other District of Columbia legal guides on Recording Law:

• District of Columbia Data Privacy Laws
• District of Columbia Biometric Privacy Laws
• District of Columbia Data Breach Notification Laws
• District of Columbia Surveillance Camera Laws
• District of Columbia Background Check Laws
• District of Columbia Medical Records Retention Laws