Bill · H.R. 7209· House(119-HR-7209)
TRAIN Act
- Introduced
- 1/22/2026
- Last activity
- 1/22/2026 — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Sponsored by
- Madeleine Dean
- Cosponsors
- - 1 - 2
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The TRAIN Act creates a new administrative subpoena process within the United States Copyright Office. This process allows copyright owners to request a subpoena to determine if their specific works were used to train generative artificial intelligence models. To use this, a person must provide a sworn declaration stating they have a good faith belief their work was used and that the information will only be used to protect their rights. If the request is in proper form, a clerk of a United States district court will issue the subpoena to the developer. The developer is then required to expeditiously provide copies or records that identify if the works were used.
Yes· 3 of 5
Does this make patent and copyright rules fairer?+7
The bill creates a formal administrative subpoena process to help copyright owners verify if their works were used to train AI models.
Would business owners be better off under this?+6
Creative professionals and business owners who rely on copyrights gain a tool to monitor and protect their assets.
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?+5
The bill increases transparency by requiring AI developers to disclose records regarding the use of specific copyrighted works.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Determining use of copyrighted works: The bill allows a legal or beneficial owner of a copyright to request a subpoena to see if their works were used to train a generative artificial intelligence model (Section 2(b)(1)).
-
Protection of rights: The subpoena process is intended to help owners obtain copies or records to determine if their works were used in connection with a model so they can protect their rights (Section 2(c)(2)(B)).
-
Establishing a presumption of use: If a developer fails to comply with a subpoena, it creates a rebuttable presumption that the developer made copies of the copyrighted work (Section 2(i)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Restriction on scope: A subpoena cannot be used to request information about copyrighted works owned or controlled by anyone other than the legal or beneficial owner making the request (Section 2(b)(2)).
-
Confidentiality requirements: A person who receives copies or records via this process is prohibited from disclosing those materials to any other person without proper authorization or consent (Section 2(g)).
-
Risk of sanctions: If a copyright owner makes a subpoena request in bad faith, a court may impose sanctions on them (Section 2(j)(1)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Government Transparency+5Improves Due Process+4
- Education And Technology
- Improves Intellectual Property Fairness+7
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Business Owners+6
- Economy And Finance
- Improves Consumer Protection+3
- 7/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/22/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Greg CasarDemocrat · Texas
Laurel LeeRepublican · Florida
Nathaniel MoranRepublican · Texas