S. 4683

115 S4683 IS: Warfighter Artificial Intelligence Readiness and Preparedness Act of 2026
 U.S. Senate
 2026-06-04
 text/xml
 EN
 Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
 II  119th CONGRESS  2d Session  S. 4683  IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES   June 4, 2026   Mr. Kelly  (for himself and  Mr. Cotton ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the  Committee on Armed Services    A BILL
To require the Secretary of Defense to assess the effects of artificial intelligence integration on warfighter effectiveness, skill retention, and operational readiness, and for other purposes.
1.
Short title
This Act may be cited as the   Warfighter Artificial Intelligence Readiness and Preparedness Act of 2026   or the   WARP Act of 2026  .
2.
Assessment of artificial intelligence effects on warfighter skill retention and operational readiness
(a)
Assessment required
Commencing not later than August 1, 2027, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct a comprehensive assessment of the effects on human performance of the adoption of artificial intelligence systems by personnel of the Department of Defense on the maintenance and retention of essential warfighter skills.
(b)
Coordination and lead official
The Secretary of Defense shall designate a senior official—
(1)
to coordinate the assessment and research activities required by this section;
(2)
to oversee the integration of findings under this section into the policies of the Department, with the objective of maximizing both artificial intelligence-enabled performance and proficiency in critical, hard-to-recover skills; and
(3)
who is authorized to coordinate among the military departments and relevant defense agencies for purposes of carrying out this section.
(c)
Scope of assessment
The assessment required under subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1)
Identification of military occupational specialties and operational roles where structured proficiency management will be most critical to sustaining readiness alongside artificial intelligence adoption based on the susceptibility to skill atrophy resulting from reliance on artificial intelligence-enabled systems as well as speed and investments to recover such skill.
(2)
Evaluation of the conditions under which artificial intelligence-enabled systems augment warfighter capability and the conditions that call for deliberate proficiency sustainment measures to preserve independent judgment and awareness based on the cognitive, operational, and manual skills decline among personnel who regularly use artificial intelligence-enabled systems compared to personnel performing equivalent tasks without such systems.
(3)
Identification of measurable indicators that distinguish beneficial skill augmentation from conditions requiring proficiency intervention.
(4)
Assessment of how current training and certification programs can be structured to build and sustain critical, hard-to-recover proficiency based on a review of the conditions under which reliance on artificial intelligence systems may contribute to overreliance, miscalibrated confidence in system outputs, diminished trust in independent human judgment, or reduced situation awareness.
(5)
Evaluation of whether current training programs and certification standards adequately preserve critical warfighter proficiency for degraded-mode, denied, or contested operational environments, including the adequacy of primary, alternate, contingency, and emergency planning frameworks.
(6)
Recommendations for policies, training protocols, doctrine, acquisition requirements, talent management strategies, or readiness metrics to ensure that artificial intelligence adoption strengthens operational readiness.
(d)
Research activities
(1)
In general
The official designated under subsection (b) shall carry out research activities to support the assessment required under subsection (a), which may include controlled experiments or high-fidelity simulations comparing performance with and without artificial intelligence-enabled systems, longitudinal studies measuring skill retention trajectories, full-spectrum performance, and recovery timelines, assessment of operator confidence and decisionmaking accuracy under simulated contested conditions, and development of standardized skill sustainment metrics applicable across the Armed Forces.
(2)
Coordination
In carrying out the research activities under paragraph (1), the official designated under subsection (b) shall coordinate with the following entities, as appropriate:
(A)
The Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences.
(B)
The Office of Naval Research.
(C)
The Air Force Research Laboratory Human Effectiveness Directorate.
(D)
The Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office.
(E)
The military departments.
(F)
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness.
(G)
Such other research entities and operational commands as the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.
(3)
Research methodology
Research conducted under this subsection shall—
(A)
establish baseline measurements of task performance and cognitive capabilities prior to artificial intelligence system use;
(B)
assess performance changes during routine artificial intelligence-assisted operations;
(C)
evaluate skill sustainment when artificial intelligence systems are removed or unavailable;
(D)
measure recovery timelines to baseline proficiency after extended artificial intelligence-assisted operations; and
(E)
identify factors that accelerate or support skill sustainment.
(e)
Reports
(1)
Initial report
(A)
In general
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the assessment required under subsection (a).
(B)
Elements
The report required under subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
(i)
An identification of military occupational specialties and operational roles where proficiency sustainment will be most critical based on which are most vulnerable to hard-to-recover skill atrophy.
(ii)
Preliminary findings from controlled operational experiments and the design of longitudinal studies under subsection (d)(1).
(iii)
An assessment of opportunities to strengthen readiness based on identification of high-level risks to proficiency based on current or planned artificial intelligence deployment practices.
(iv)
Recommended changes to policies, training, doctrine, or acquisition requirements to optimize human and artificial intelligence integration.
(v)
Recommendations for updates, identified as near- or long-term in nature, to existing training programs, certification standards, and operational doctrine to build and sustain critical and hard-to-recover proficiencies and identification of the Department of Defense component or office best positioned to implement each such recommendation.
(vi)
An identification of any additional authorities, resources, research partnerships with academic institutions or federally funded research and development centers, or technical expertise needed to conduct the research activities described in subsection (d).
(2)
Longitudinal study report
(A)
In general
Not later than three years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report containing the findings of the longitudinal studies conducted under subsection (d)(1).
(B)
Elements
The report required under subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
(i)
An identification of measured rates of retention and atrophy of hard-to-recover skills across different military occupational specialties and operational contexts.
(ii)
An assessment of skill recovery trajectories and the time required to restore baseline proficiency.
(iii)
An evaluation of degraded-mode performance outcomes under simulated contested conditions.
(iv)
Updated recommendations for policies, training protocols, doctrine, acquisition requirements, or readiness metrics based on research findings.
(v)
Any update to the recommendations made under paragraph (1)(B)(v).
(f)
Briefings
(1)
Initial briefing
Not later than 90 days after the submittal of the initial report under subsection (e)(1), the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on the findings and recommendations contained in such report.
(2)
Longitudinal study briefing
Not later than 90 days after the submittal of the longitudinal study report under subsection (e)(2), the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on the findings and recommendations contained in such report.
(g)
Review of training and doctrine
The Secretary of Defense shall assess whether existing training programs, certification standards, and operational doctrine adequately account for the effects of artificial intelligence-enabled systems on skill retention and degraded-mode performance and shall include in the reports required under subsection (e)—
(1)
recommendations for updates, as appropriate, identified as near-term or longer-term in nature; and
(2)
identification of the Department of Defense component or office best positioned to consider implementation of each such recommendation.
(h)
Definitions
In this section:
(1)
Artificial intelligence system
The term  artificial intelligence system  has the meaning given the term  artificial intelligence  in section 238(g) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 ( Public Law 115–232 ;  10 U.S.C. 4061  note prec.).
(2)
Artificial intelligence-enabled system
The term  artificial intelligence-enabled system  means any weapons system, decision support tool, or operational capability that incorporates or relies on an artificial intelligence system.
(3)
Congressional defense committees
The term  congressional defense committees  has the meaning given that term in section 101 of title 10, United States Code.
(4)
Degraded-mode operations
The term  degraded-mode operations  means military operations conducted when artificial intelligence systems or supporting infrastructure are unavailable, partially functional, compromised, or under adversarial attack.
(5)
Primary, alternate, contingency, and emergency planning
The term  primary, alternate, contingency, and emergency planning  means a framework for ensuring continuity of operations when primary systems become unavailable, requiring personnel to employ alternate approaches, contingency plans, or emergency procedures.