TITLE 1. ADMINISTRATION
PART 2. TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION
CHAPTER 20. REPORTING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES
The Texas Ethics Commission (the TEC) adopts the repeal of all existing rules in Texas Ethics Commission Chapter 20, regarding Reporting Political Contributions and Expenditures. These repeals are adopted without changes to the proposed text as published in the December 26, 2025, issue of the Texas Register (50 TexReg 8426). The rules will not be republished.
Specifically, the Commission adopts the repeal of all rules in Subchapter A of Chapter 20 (relating to General Rules), including §20.1 regarding Definitions, §20.3 regarding Reports Filed with the Commission, §20.5 regarding Reports Filed with a County Filing Authority, §20.7 regarding Reports Filed with Other Local Filing Authority, §20.9 regarding Filing Option for Certain Specific-Purpose Committees, §20.11 regarding Federal Candidates and Officeholders, §20.13 regarding Out-of-State Committees, §20.15 regarding Change of Address, §20.16 regarding Notices by Electronic Mail, §20.18 regarding Recordkeeping Required, §20.19 regarding Reports Must Be Filed on Official Forms, §20.20 regarding Timeliness of Action by Electronic Filing, §20.21 regarding Due Dates on Holidays and Weekends, §20.23 regarding Timeliness of Action by Mail, §20.29 regarding Information About Out-of-State Committees, §20.33 regarding Termination of Campaign Treasurer Appointment By Commission, and §20.35 regarding Notice of Proposed Termination of Campaign Treasurer Appointment.
The TEC also adopts the repeal of all rules in Subchapter B of Chapter 20 (relating to General Reporting Rules), including §20.50 regarding Total Political Contributions Maintained, §20.51 regarding Value of In-Kind Contribution, §20.52 regarding Description of In-Kind Contribution for Travel, §20.53 regarding Disclosure of True Source of Contribution or Expenditure, §20.54 regarding Reporting a Pledge of a Contribution, §20.55 regarding Time of Accepting Contribution, §20.56 regarding Expenditures to Vendors, §20.57 regarding Time of Making Expenditure, §20.58 regarding Disclosure of Political Expenditure, §20.59 regarding Reporting Expenditure by Credit Card, §20.60 regarding Reporting Political Expenditures for Processing Fees, §20.61 regarding Purpose of Expenditure, §20.62 regarding Reporting Staff Reimbursement, §20.63 regarding Reporting the Use and Reimbursement of Personal Funds, §20.64 regarding Reporting the Forgiveness of a Loan or Settlement of a Debt, §20.65 regarding Reporting No Activity, §20.66 regarding Discounts, and §20.67 regarding Reporting after the Death or Incapacity of a Filer.
The TEC also adopts the repeal of all rules in Subchapter C of Chapter 20 (relating to Reporting Requirements for a Candidate), including §20.201 regarding Required Appointment of Campaign Treasurer, §20.203 regarding Candidates for State Party Chair, §20.205 regarding Contents of Candidate's Campaign Treasurer Appointment, §20.206 regarding Transfer of Campaign Treasurer Appointment, §20.207 regarding Termination of Campaign Treasurer Appointment, §20.209 regarding Reporting Obligations Imposed on Candidate, Not Campaign Treasurer, §20.211 regarding Semiannual Reports, §20.213 regarding Pre-election Reports, §20.215 regarding Runoff Report, §20.217 regarding Modified Reporting, §20.219 regarding Content of Candidate's Sworn Report of Contributions and Expenditures, §20.220 regarding Additional Disclosure for the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, §20.221 regarding Special Pre-Election Report by Certain Candidates, §20.223 regarding Form and Contents of Special Pre-Election Report, §20.225 regarding Special Session Reports, §20.227 regarding Contents of Special Session Report, §20.229 regarding Final Report, §20.231 regarding Contents of Final Report, §20.233 regarding Annual Report of Unexpended Contributions, §20.235 regarding Contents of Annual Report, §20.237 regarding Final Disposition of Unexpended Contributions, §20.239 regarding Report of Final Disposition of Unexpended Contributions, §20.241 regarding Contents of Report of Final Disposition of Unexpended Contributions, and §20.243 regarding Contribution of Unexpended Political Contributions to Candidate or Political Committee.
The TEC also adopts the repeal of all rules in Subchapter D of Chapter 20 (relating to Reporting Requirements for an Officeholder Who Does Not Have a Campaign Treasurer Appointment on File), including §20.271 regarding Officeholders Covered, §20.273 regarding Semiannual Reports of Contributions and Expenditures, §20.275 regarding Exception from Filing Requirement for Certain Local Officeholders, §20.277 regarding Appointment by Officeholder of Campaign Treasurer, §20.279 regarding Contents of Officeholder's Sworn Report of Contributions and Expenditures, §20.281 regarding Special Session Report by Certain Officeholders, §20.283 regarding Contents of Special Session Report, §20.285 regarding Annual Report of Unexpended Contributions by Former Officeholder, §20.287 regarding Contents of Annual Report, §20.289 regarding Disposition of Unexpended Contributions, §20.291 regarding Report of Final Disposition of Unexpended Contributions, §20.293 regarding Contents of Report of Final Disposition of Unexpended Contributions, and §20.295 regarding Contribution of Unexpended Political Contributions to Candidate or Political Committee.
The TEC also adopts the repeal of all rules in Subchapter E of Chapter 20 (relating to Reports by a Specific-Purpose Committee), including §20.301 regarding Thresholds for Campaign Treasurer Appointment, §20.303 regarding Appointment of Campaign Treasurer, §20.305 regarding Appointing an Assistant Campaign Treasurer., §20.307 regarding Name of Specific-Purpose Committee, §20.309 regarding Contents of Specific-Purpose Committee Campaign Treasurer Appointment, §20.311 regarding Updating Certain Information on the Campaign Treasurer Appointment, §20.313 regarding Converting to a General-Purpose Committee, §20.315 regarding Termination of Campaign Treasurer Appointment, §20.317 regarding Termination Report, §20.319 regarding Notice to Candidate or Officeholder, §20.321 regarding Involvement in More Than One Election by Certain Specific-Purpose Committees, §20.323 regarding Semiannual Reports, §20.325 regarding Pre-election Reports, §20.327 regarding Runoff Report, §20.329 regarding Modified Reporting, §20.331 regarding Contents of Specific-Purpose Committee Sworn Report of Contributions and Expenditures, §20.333 regarding Special Pre-Election Report by Certain Specific-Purpose Committees, §20.335 regarding Form and Contents of Special Pre-Election Report by a Specific-Purpose Committee Supporting or Opposing Certain Candidates, §20.337 regarding Special Session Reports by Specific-Purpose Committees, §20.339 regarding Contents of the Special Session Report, §20.341 regarding Dissolution Report, and §20.343 regarding Contents of Dissolution Report.
The TEC also adopts the repeal of all rules in Subchapter F of Chapter 20 (relating to Reporting Requirement for a General Purpose Committee), including §20.401 regarding Thresholds for Appointment of Campaign Treasurer by a General-Purpose Committee, §20.403 regarding Reporting Requirements for Certain General-Purpose Committees, §20.405 regarding Campaign Treasurer Appointment for a General-Purpose Political Committee, §20.407 regarding Appointing an Assistant Campaign Treasurer, §20.409 regarding Name of General-Purpose Committee, §20.411 regarding Contents of General-Purpose Committee Campaign Treasurer Appointment, §20.413 regarding Updating Information on the Campaign Treasurer Appointment, §20.415 regarding Termination of Campaign Treasurer Appointment, §20.417 regarding Termination Report, §20.419 regarding Converting to a Specific-Purpose Committee, §20.421 regarding Notice to Candidate or Officeholder, §20.423 regarding Semiannual Reports, §20.425 regarding Pre-election Reports, §20.427 regarding Runoff Report, §20.429 regarding Option To File Monthly, §20.431 regarding Monthly Reporting, §20.433 regarding Contents of General-Purpose Committee Sworn Report of Contributions and Expenditures, §20.434 regarding Alternate Reporting Requirements for General-Purpose Committees, §20.435 regarding Special Pre-Election Reports by Certain General-Purpose Committees, §20.437 regarding Form and Contents of Special Pre-Election Report, §20.439 regarding Dissolution Report, and §20.441 regarding Contents of Dissolution Report.
The TEC also adopts the repeal of all rules in Subchapter G of Chapter 20 (relating to Rules Applicable to a Principal Political Committee of a Political Party), including §20.501 regarding Designation of Principal Political Committee, and §20.503. Exceptions from Certain Notice Requirements.
The TEC also adopts the repeal of all rules in Subchapter H of Chapter 20 (relating to Rules Applicable to a Political Party Accepting Contributions from Corporations or Labor Organizations), including §20.521 regarding Restrictions on Use of Contributions from Corporations or Labor Organizations, §20.523 regarding Separate Account Required, §20.525 regarding Record of Contributions and Expenditures and Contents of Report, §20.527 regarding Form of Report, §20.529 regarding Reporting Schedule for Political Party Accepting Corporate or Labor Organization Contributions, and §20.531 regarding Restrictions on Contributions before General Election.
The TEC also adopts the repeal of all rules in Subchapter I of Chapter 20 (relating to Rules Applicable to a Political Party's County Executive Committee), including §20.551 regarding Obligation To Maintain Records, §20.553. Campaign Treasurer Appointment Not Required for County Executive Committee Accepting Contributions or Making Expenditures Under Certain Amount, §20.555. County Executive Committee Accepting Contributions or Making Expenditures That Exceed Certain Amount, §20.557 regarding Exceptions from Certain Restrictions, §20.559 regarding Exception from Notice Requirement, and §20.561 regarding County Executive Committee Accepting Contributions from Corporations and/or Labor Organizations.
The TEC also adopts the repeal of all rules in Subchapter J of Chapter 20 (relating to Reports by a Candidate for State or County Party Chair), including §20.571 regarding Definitions, §20.573 regarding Rules Applicable to Candidate for State Chair of a Political Party, §20.575 regarding Contributions to and Expenditures by Candidate for State Chair of a Political Party, §20.577 regarding Reporting Schedule for a Candidate for State Chair, and §20.579 regarding Candidates for County Chair in Certain Counties.
The TEC also adopts the repeal of all rules in Subchapter K of Chapter 20 (relating to Reports by Political Committees Supporting or Opposing a Candidate for State or County Chair of a Political Party), including §20.591 regarding Appointment of Campaign Treasurer by Political Committee Supporting or Opposing Candidate for State Chair of a Political Party, §20.593. Contributions and Expenditures by Political Committee Supporting or Opposing Candidate for State Chair of a Political Party, §20.595. Reporting Schedule for a Political Committee Supporting or Opposing Candidate for State Chair of a Political Party, and §20.597. Political Committees Supporting or Opposing Candidates for County Chair in Certain Counties.
These repeals, along with the contemporaneous adoption of the new rules in Chapter 20, amend the rules used in reporting contributions and expenditures in campaign finance reports.
State law requires state agencies to "review and consider for readoption each of its rules … not later than the fourth anniversary of the date on which the rule takes effect and every four years after that date." Tex. Gov't Code §2001.039. The law further requires agencies to "readopt, readopt with amendments, or repeal a rule as the result of reviewing the rule under this section." Id.
The TEC is continuing its comprehensive review with a review of the TEC's rules regarding reporting political contributions and expenditures, which are codified in Chapter 20. The repeal of these rules and adoption of new rules seek to shorten, simplify, and reorganize the rules to eliminate surplusage and improve clarity on these reporting requirements.
The TEC did not receive any public comments on these repeals.
SUBCHAPTER
A.
The repealed rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted repealed rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600878
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
B.
The repealed rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted repealed rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600879
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
C.
The repealed rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted repealed rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600880
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
D.
The repealed rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted repealed rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600881
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
E.
The repealed rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted repealed rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600882
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
F.
The repealed rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted repealed rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600883
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
G.
The repealed rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted repealed rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600884
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
H.
The repealed rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted repealed rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600885
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
I.
The repealed rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted repealed rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600886
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
J.
The repealed rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted repealed rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600887
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
K.
The repealed rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted repealed rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600888
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
CHAPTER 20. REPORTING CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES
The Texas Ethics Commission (the TEC) adopts new Chapter 20 in TEC Rules, regarding Reporting Contributions and Expenditures, consisting of §§20.1, 20.7, 20.13, 20.14, 20.16, 20.21, 20.33, 20.35, 20.50 - 20.52, 20.54 - 20.56, 20.58 - 20.67, 20.201, 20.203, 20.205, 20.207, 20.209, 20.211, 20.213, 20.215, 20.220, 20.221, 20.223, 20.225, 20.227, 20.235, 20.243, 20.271, 20.295, 20.303, 20.305, 20.307, 20.308, 20.311, 20.313, 20.319, 20.333, 20.343, 20.403, 20.503, 20.523, 20.527, 20.529, 20.555, 20.557, 20.559, 20.561, 20.571, 20.577, 20.579, 20.601, and 20.602. Sections 20.1, 20.529, and 20.557 are adopted with changes (as specified below) to the proposed text as published in the December 26, 2025, issue of the Texas Register (50 TexReg 8433) and will be republished. All other sections are adopted without changes to the proposed text and will not be republished.
Specifically, the TEC adopts new rules in Subchapter A of Chapter 20 (relating to General Rules), including §§20.1 regarding Definitions, 20.7 regarding Reports filed with Other Local Filing Authority, 20.13 regarding Out-of-State Committees, 20.14 regarding Information About Out-of-State Committees, 20.16 regarding Notices by Electronic Mail, 20.21 regarding Due Date on Holidays and Weekends, 20.33 regarding Termination of Campaign Treasurer Appointment by Commission, and 20.35 regarding Notice of Proposed Termination of Campaign Treasurer Appointment.
The TEC also adopts new rules in Subchapter B of Chapter 20 (relating to General Reporting Rules), including §§20.50 regarding Total Political Contributions Maintained, 20.51 regarding Value of In-Kind Contribution, 20.52 regarding Description of In-Kind Contribution for Travel, 20.54 regarding Reporting a Pledge of a Contribution, 20.55 regarding Time of Accepting Contribution, 20.56 regarding Expenditures to Vendors, 20.58 regarding Disclosure of Political Expenditure, 20.59 regarding Reporting Expenditure by Credit Card, 20.60 regarding Reporting Political Expenditures for Processing Fees, 20.61 regarding Purpose of Expenditure, 20.62 regarding Reporting Staff Reimbursement, 20.63 regarding Reporting the Use and Reimbursement of Personal Funds, 20.64 regarding Reporting the Forgiveness of a Loan or Settlement of a Debt, 20.65 regarding Reporting No Activity, 20.66 regarding Discounts, and 20.67 regarding Reporting after the Death or Incapacity of a Filer.
The TEC also adopts new rules in Subchapter C of Chapter 20 (relating to Reporting Requirements), including §§20.201 regarding Definitions, 20.203 regarding Required Appointment of Campaign Treasurer, 20.205 regarding Modified Reporting, 20.207 regarding Reporting Political Contributions to a Business in Which the Candidate or Officeholder Has a Participating Interest, 20.209 regarding Reporting Contributions, 20.211 regarding Reporting Pledges, 20.213 regarding Reporting Loans, 20.215 regarding Reporting Expenditures of Personal Funds, 20.220 regarding Additional Disclosure for the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, 20.221 regarding Special Pre-Election Report by Certain Candidates, 20.223 regarding Form and Contents of Special Pre-election Report, 20.225 regarding Special Session Reports for Candidates and Certain Officeholders, 20.227 regarding Contents of Special Session Report, 20.235 regarding Contents of Annual Report, and 20.243 regarding Contribution of Unexpended Political Contributions to Candidate or Political Committee.
The TEC also adopts new rules in Subchapter D of Chapter 20 (relating to Reporting Requirements for an Officeholder Who Does Not Have a Campaign Treasurer Appointment on File), including §§20.271 regarding Officeholders Covered, and 20.295 regarding Contribution of Unexpended Political Contributions to Candidate or Political Committee.
The TEC also adopts new rules in Subchapter E of Chapter 20 (relating to Reports by a General-Purpose or Specific-Purpose Committee), including §§20.303 regarding Appointment of Campaign Treasurer, 20.305 regarding Appointing an Assistant Campaign Treasurer, 20.307 regarding Name of Specific-Purpose Committee, 20.308 regarding Name of General-Purpose Committee, 20.311 regarding Updating Certain Information on the Campaign Treasurer Appointment, 20.313 regarding Converting to a Different Committee Type, 20.319 regarding Notice to Candidate of Officeholder, 20.333 regarding Special Pre-Election Report by Certain Specific-Purpose Committees, 20.343 regarding Contents of Dissolution Report, and 20.403 regarding Reporting Requirements for Certain General-Purpose Committees.
The TEC also adopts a new rule in Subchapter F of Chapter 20 (relating to Rules Applicable to a Principal Political Committee of a Political Party), including §20.503 regarding Exceptions from Certain Notice Requirements.
The TEC also adopts new rules in Subchapter G of Chapter 20 (relating to Rules Applicable to a Political Party Accepting Contributions From Corporations and/or Labor Organizations), including §§20.523 regarding Separate Account Required, 20.527 regarding Form of Report, and 20.529 regarding Reporting Schedule for Political Party Accepting Corporate and/or Labor Organization Contributions.
The TEC also adopts new rules in Subchapter H of Chapter 20 (relating to Rules Applicable to a Political Party's County Executive Committee), including §§20.555 regarding County Executive Committee Accepting Contributions or Making Expenditures That Exceed Certain Amount, 20.557 regarding Exceptions from Certain Restrictions, 20.559 regarding Exception from Notice Requirement, and 20.561 regarding County Executive Committee Accepting Contributions From Corporations and/or Labor Organizations.
The TEC also adopts new rules in Subchapter I of Chapter 20 (relating to Reports by a Candidate or a Committee Supporting or Opposing a Candidate for State or County Party Chair), including §§20.571 regarding Definitions, 20.577 regarding Reporting Schedule for a Candidate for State Chair, and 20.579 regarding Candidates and Committees Supporting or Opposing Candidates for County Chair in Certain Counties.
The TEC also adopts new rules in Subchapter J of Chapter 20 (relating to Reports by a Legislative Caucus), including §§20.601 regarding Reporting Obligations Imposed on Caucus Chair, and 20.602 regarding Reporting Schedule for a Legislative Caucus.
This adoption, along with the contemporaneous adoption of the repeal of all existing rules in Chapter 20, amends the rules used in reporting contributions and expenditures in campaign finance reports.
The TEC did not receive any public comments on these new rules.
The changes from the proposed rules to the adopted rules are only to correct minor errors:
20.1(15)(E): added a missing period at the end; no text was changed
20.529: a space was added between "that[-]begins"
20.557: Removed extra ")" at the end; no text was changed
State law requires state agencies to "review and consider for readoption each of its rules … not later than the fourth anniversary of the date on which the rule takes effect and every four years after that date." Tex. Gov't Code § 2001.039. The law further requires agencies to "readopt, readopt with amendments, or repeal a rule as the result of reviewing the rule under this section." Id.
The TEC is continuing its comprehensive review with a review of the TEC's rules regarding reporting contributions and expenditures, which are codified in Chapter 20. The repeal of existing rules and adoption of new rules seek to shorten, simplify, and reorganize the rules to eliminate surplusage and improve clarity on procedures for reporting contributions and expenditures in campaign finance reports.
SUBCHAPTER
A.
The new rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
§20.1.
The following words and terms, when used in Title 15 of the Election Code, in this chapter, Chapter 22 of this title (relating to Restrictions on Contributions and Expenditures), and Chapter 24 of this title (relating to Restrictions on Contributions and Expenditures Applicable to Corporations and Labor Organizations), shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(1) Campaign communication--The term does not include a communication made by e-mail.
(2) Campaign treasurer--Either the individual appointed by a candidate to be the campaign treasurer, or the individual responsible for filing campaign finance reports of a political committee under Texas law or the law of any other state.
(3) Contribution--The term does not include a transfer for consideration of anything of value pursuant to a contract that reflects the usual and normal business practice of the vendor.
(4) Corporation--The term does not include professional corporations or professional associations.
(5) Election cycle--A single election and any related primary or runoff election.
(6) Identified measure--A question or proposal submitted in an election for an expression of the voters' will and includes the circulation and submission of a petition to determine whether a question or proposal is required to be submitted in an election for an expression of the voters' will.
(7) Non-political expenditure--An expenditure from political contributions that is not an officeholder expenditure or a campaign expenditure.
(8) Opposed candidate--A candidate who has an opponent whose name is to appear on the ballot. The name of a write-in candidate does not appear on the ballot.
(9) Pledge--A contribution in the form of an unfulfilled promise or unfulfilled agreement, whether enforceable or not, to provide a specified amount of money or specific goods or services. The term does not include a contribution made in the form of a check.
(10) Political advertising:
(A) A communication that supports or opposes a political party, a public officer, a measure, or a candidate for nomination or election to a public office or office of a political party, and:
(i) is published in a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical in return for consideration;
(ii) is broadcast by radio or television in return for consideration;
(iii) appears in a pamphlet, circular, flyer, billboard, or other sign, bumper sticker, or similar form of written communication; or
(iv) appears on an Internet website.
(B) The term does not include an individual communication made by e-mail but does include mass e-mails involving an expenditure of funds beyond the basic cost of hardware messaging software and bandwidth.
(11) Political subdivision--A county, city, or school district or any other governmental entity that:
(A) embraces a geographic area with a defined boundary;
(B) exists for the purpose of discharging functions of government; and
(C) possesses authority for subordinate self-government through officers selected by it.
(12) Report--Any document required to be filed by this title, including an appointment of campaign treasurer, any type of report of contributions and expenditures, and any notice.
(13) Special pre-election report--A shorthand term for a report filed in accordance with the requirements of §20.221 and §20.333 of this chapter (relating to Special Pre-Election Report by Certain Candidates; and Special Pre-Election Report by Certain Specific-Purpose Committees) and §254.038 and §254.039 of the Election Code.
(14) Unidentified measure--A question or proposal that is intended to be submitted in an election for an expression of the voters' will and that is not yet legally required to be submitted in an election, except that the term does not include the circulation or submission of a petition to determine whether a question or proposal is required to be submitted in an election for an expression of the voters' will. The circulation or submission of a petition to determine whether a question or proposal is required to be submitted in an election for an expression of the voters' will is considered to be an identified measure.
(15) Principal purpose--A group has as a principal purpose of accepting political contributions or making political expenditures, including direct campaign expenditures, when that activity is an important or a main function of the group.
(A) A group may have more than one principal purpose. When determining whether a group has a principal purpose of accepting political contributions or making political expenditures, the Commission may consider any available evidence regarding the activities by the group and its members, including, but not limited to:
(i) public statements,
(ii) fundraising appeals,
(iii) government filings,
(iv) organizational documents; and
(v) the amount of political expenditures made and political contributions accepted by the group and its members.
(B) A group does not have a principal purpose of making political expenditures if it can demonstrate that not more than 49% of its overall expenditures are political expenditures.
(C) The following shall be included for purposes of calculating the proportion of the group's political expenditures to all other spending:
(i) the amount of money paid in compensation and benefits to the group's employees for work related to making political expenditures;
(ii) the amount of money spent on political expenditures; and
(iii) the amount of money attributable to the proportional share of administrative expenses related to political expenditures. The proportional share of administrative expenses is calculated by comparing the political expenditures in clause (ii) of this subparagraph with non-political expenditures. (For example, if the group sends three mailings a year and each costs $10,000, if the first two are issue-based newsletters and the third is a direct advocacy sample ballot, and there were no other expenditures, then the proportion of the administrative expenses attributable to political expenditures would be 33%.) Administrative expenses include:
(I) fees for services to non-employees;
(II) advertising and promotion;
(III) office expenses;
(IV) information technology;
(V) occupancy;
(VI) travel expenses;
(VII) interest; and
(VIII) insurance.
(D) The group may maintain specific evidence of administrative expenses related only to political expenditures or only to non-political expenditures. Specifically identified administrative expenses shall not be included in the proportion established by subparagraph (C)(iii) but allocated by the actual amount of the expense.
(E) In this section, the term "political expenditures" includes direct campaign expenditures.
(16) In connection with a campaign:
(A) An expenditure is made in connection with a campaign for an elective office if it is:
(i) made for a communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate by:
(I) using such words as "vote for," "elect," "support," "vote against," "defeat," "reject," "cast your ballot for," or "Smith for city council;" or
(II) using such phrases as "elect the incumbent" or "reject the challenger," or such phrases as "vote pro-life" or "vote pro-choice" accompanied by a listing of candidates described as "pro-life" or "pro-choice;"
(ii) made for a communication broadcast by radio, television, cable, or satellite or distributed by print or electronic media, including any print publication, mailing, Internet website, electronic mail, or automated phone bank, that:
(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate;
(II) is distributed within 30 days before a contested election for the office sought by the candidate;
(III) targets a mass audience or group in the geographical area the candidate seeks to represent; and
(IV) includes words, whether displayed, written, or spoken; images of the candidate or candidate's opponent; or sounds of the voice of the candidate or candidate's opponent that, without consideration of the intent of the person making the communication, are susceptible of no other reasonable interpretation than to urge the election or defeat of the candidate;
(iii) made by a candidate or political committee to support or oppose a candidate; or
(iv) a campaign contribution to:
(I) a candidate; or
(II) a group that, at the time of the contribution, already qualifies as a political committee.
(B) An expenditure is made in connection with a campaign on a measure if it is:
(i) made for a communication that expressly advocates the passage or defeat of a clearly identified measure by using such words as "vote for," "support," "vote against," "defeat," "reject," or "cast your ballot for;"
(ii) made for a communication broadcast by radio, television, cable, or satellite or distributed by print or electronic media, including any print publication, mailing, Internet website, electronic mail, or automated phone bank, that:
(I) refers to a clearly identified measure;
(II) is distributed within 30 days before the election in which the measure is to appear on the ballot;
(III) targets a mass audience or group in the geographical area in which the measure is to appear on the ballot; and
(IV) includes words, whether displayed, written, or spoken, that, without consideration of the intent of the person making the communication, are susceptible of no other reasonable interpretation than to urge the passage or defeat of the measure;
(iii) made by a political committee to support or oppose a measure; or
(iv) a campaign contribution to a group that, at the time of the contribution, already qualifies as a political committee.
(C) Any cost incurred for covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial by a broadcasting station or cable television operator, Internet website, or newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, including an Internet or other electronic publication, is not a campaign expenditure if the cost for the news story, commentary, or editorial is not paid for by, and the medium is not owned or controlled by, a candidate or political committee.
(D) For purposes of this section:
(i) a candidate is clearly identified by a communication that includes the candidate's name, office sought, office held, likeness, photograph, or other apparent and unambiguous reference; and
(ii) a measure is clearly identified by a communication that includes the measure's name or ballot designation (such as "Proposition 1"), purposes, election date, or other apparent and unambiguous reference.
(17) Discount--The provision of any goods or services without charge or at a charge which is less than fair market value. A discount is an in-kind political contribution unless the terms of the transaction reflect the usual and normal practice of the industry and are typical of the terms that are offered to political and non-political persons alike, or unless the discount is given solely to comply with §253.041 of the Election Code. The value of an in-kind contribution in the form of a discount is the difference between the fair market value of the goods or services at the time of the contribution and the amount charged.
(18) School district--For purposes of §254.130 of the Election Code and §20.7 of this chapter (relating to Reports Filed with Other Local Filing Authority), the term includes a junior college district or community college district.
(19) Vendor--Any person providing goods or services to a candidate, officeholder, political committee, or other filer under this chapter. The term does not include an employee of the candidate, officeholder, political committee, or other filer.
(20) Hybrid committee--A political committee that, as provided by §252.003(a)(4) or §252.0031(a)(2) of the Election Code, as applicable, has filed a campaign treasurer appointment that includes an affidavit stating that:
(A) the committee is not established or controlled by a candidate or an officeholder; and
(B) the committee will not use any political contribution from a corporation or a labor organization to make a political contribution to:
(i) a candidate for elective office;
(ii) an officeholder; or
(iii) a political committee that has not filed an affidavit in accordance with this section.
(21) Direct campaign expenditure-only committee--A political committee, as authorized by §253.105 of the Election Code to accept political contributions from corporations and/or labor organizations, that:
(A) is not established or controlled by a candidate or an officeholder;
(B) makes or intends to make direct campaign expenditures;
(C) does not make or intend to make political contributions to:
(i) a candidate;
(ii) an officeholder;
(iii) a specific-purpose committee established or controlled by a candidate or an officeholder; or
(iv) a political committee that makes or intends to make political contributions to a candidate, an officeholder, or a specific-purpose committee established or controlled by a candidate or an officeholder; and
(D) has filed an affidavit with the Commission stating the committee's intention to operate as described by subparagraphs (B) and (C).
(22) Reportable Activity--For the purposes of filing a final report, this term includes an expenditure to pay a campaign debt.
(23) Statewide Measure--A measure to be voted on by all eligible voters in the state.
(24) District Measure--A measure to be voted on by the voters of a district.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600890
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
B.
The new rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600891
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
C.
The new rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600892
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
D.
The new rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600893
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
E.
The new rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600894
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
F.
The new rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600899
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
G.
The new rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
§20.529.
A political party that has accepted a contribution from a corporation and/or labor organization shall file the following reports until the political party is no longer accepting corporate and/or labor organization contributions and the acceptance and expenditure of all such funds has been reported.
(1) A report shall be filed not earlier than July 1 and not later than July 15, covering the period that begins on either January 1 or the day after the last day included in a primary election report filed under paragraph (3) of this section, as applicable, and ends on June 30.
(2) A report shall be filed not earlier than January 1 and not later than January 15, covering the period that begins on either July 1 or the day after the last day included in a general election report filed under paragraph (4) of this section, as applicable, and ends on December 31.
(3) A report shall be filed for each primary election held by the political party. The report shall be filed not later than the eighth day before the primary election, covering the period that begins on January 1 and ends on the 10th day before the primary election.
(4) A report shall be filed for the general election for state and county officers. The report shall be filed not later than the 50th day before the general election, covering the period that begins on July 1 and ends on the 61st day before the general election for state and county officers.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600895
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
H.
The new rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
§20.557.
A county executive committee is excepted from complying with §253.031(b)-(c) of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600896
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
I.
The new rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600897
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
SUBCHAPTER
J.
The new rules are adopted under Texas Government Code §571.062, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to administer Title 15 of the Election Code and Chapter 571 of the Government Code.
The adopted rules affect Title 15 of the Election Code.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 2026.
TRD-202600898
Amanda Arriaga
General Counsel
Texas Ethics Commission
Effective date: March 16, 2026
Proposal publication date: December 26, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5800
PART 10. DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES
CHAPTER 218. DATA GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
The Texas Department of Information Resources (department) adopts 1 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 218, Subchapter B, §218.10, and Subchapter C, §218.20, without changes to the proposal as published in the November 7, 2025, edition of the Texas Register (50 TexReg 7165). These will not be republished.
The adopted rules apply to state agencies and institutions of higher education.
Comments Received by the Department
The department received one comment from HITRUST in response to the proposed rule.
HITRUST recommended that the department recognize their certification as an acceptable way for agencies to meet portions of the data maturity assessment. The department declined to make this change as, due to the biennial submission of these reports to the department and state leadership and the potential for analysis of the data when the department prepares statutorily required reports, it is necessary for the information to be collected in a uniform fashion identified by the department.
In its comment responding to the publication of the proposed 1 TAC Chapter 219, Authorship recommended the department cross reference AI governance in the data maturity tool established by 1 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 218 and combine the data maturity assessment required by Texas Government Code § 2054.515 and regulated by 1 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 218 with the AI impact assessment required by 1 TAC §219.23. The department declined to make a change as the data maturity assessment is a statutorily required evaluation that a state agency must complete each biennium whereas the impact assessment must be completed only when a state agency deploys or uses a heightened scrutiny AI system.
Description of Adopted Changes
The department adopts Subchapter B, §218.10, for state agencies, and Subchapter C, §218.20, for institutions of higher education, which align the reporting requirements and deadlines for the data governance assessment with those found at Texas Government Code § 2054.515, standardize the assessment tool used by state agencies to ensure the department's ability to collect and report upon the data as contemplated by Texas Government Code Chapter 2054, establishes the data governance assessment as a discrete report separate from the information security assessment.
Within Subchapter C, the department adopts amendments to §218.20 removing the clarification that the data maturity assessment is considered an information security standard, and, as such, the requirement for public junior colleges to comply with this requirement subject to Texas Government Code § 2054.0075.
SUBCHAPTER
B.
The amendments are adopted pursuant to Texas Government Code § 2054.052(a), which authorizes the department to adopt rules as necessary to implement its responsibilities under Texas Government Code Chapter 2054, and Texas Government Code § 2054.515(c) which requires the department to establish the data maturity assessment requirements by rule.
No other code, article, or statute is affected by this adoption.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 26, 2026.
TRD-202600997
Joshua Godbey
General Counsel
Department of Information Resources
Effective date: March 18, 2026
Proposal publication date: November 7, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 475-4531
SUBCHAPTER
C.
The amendments are adopted pursuant to Texas Government Code § 2054.052(a), which authorizes the department to adopt rules as necessary to implement its responsibilities under Texas Government Code Chapter 2054, and Texas Government Code § 2054.515(c) which requires the department to establish the data maturity assessment requirements by rule.
No other code, article, or statute is affected by this adoption.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 26, 2026.
TRD-202600998
Joshua Godbey
General Counsel
Department of Information Resources
Effective date: March 18, 2026
Proposal publication date: November 7, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 475-4531
CHAPTER 219. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
The Texas Department of Information Resources (department) adopts 1 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 219, Subchapter A, §219.1, and Subchapter B, §219.20 and §219.23, without changes to the proposal as published in the November 7, 2025, edition of the Texas Register (50 TexReg 7167). These will not be republished.
The department adopts 1 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 219, Subchapter A, §219.11, and Subchapter B, §§219.21, 219.22 and 219.24, with nonsubstantive changes to the rules as published in the November 7, 2025, edition of the Texas Register (50 TexReg 7167) in response to comments received from the public. These sections will be republished.
The adopted rules apply to state agencies, institutions of higher education, and, in limited scope as required by Senate Bill 1964 [89th Session (Regular)], local governments, a term which may include approximately 1,100 rural communities as defined by Texas Government Code § 2006.001(1-a).
Comments Received by the Department
The department received public comments from a department employee; Workday; Authorship; Teaching Hospitals of Texas; Parkland Health; Information Technology Industry Council (Council); TechNet; and the Texas Workforce Commission (Commission) in response to the proposed rule.
The department employee recommended that the department amend the proposed rules to require assessments of all artificial intelligence (AI) systems rather than only heightened scrutiny AI systems because research reflects that humans may accept an AI system's output without analysis. The department declined to make a change as a result of this comment because Senate Bill 1964 [89th Session (Regular)] requires the department to address requirements for heightened scrutiny AI systems but does not extend the same requirements to non-heightened scrutiny AI systems.
The department employee recommended the department clarify whether a system's rejection filter is considered a heightened scrutiny AI system. The department declined to make a change as the term heightened scrutiny AI system is defined by statute and examples of what constitutes a heightened scrutiny AI system is better suited for non-regulatory guidelines.
Authorship recommended that the department affirmatively state that the standard AI risk assessment and heightened scrutiny AI impact assessment forms the department creates will be structured, machine-readable, and aligned with nationally recognized frameworks. The department declined to make this change as neither the rule nor statute requires the department to create a form or template for this purpose or governmental entities to use such a form or template.
Authorship recommended that the department establish by rule a statewide AI Governance Repository. The department declined to make this comment as a repository of this type exceeds the authorized scope of the rules.
Authorship recommended the department provide by rule for a managed, shared platform option for small entities and local governments. The department declined to make this change as it exceeds the agency's authority under statute and is not an initiative authorized or funded by the legislature.
Authorship recommended that the department establish by rule a continuous technical review channel for AI matters. The department declined to make this change as Texas Government Code § 2054.705 creates the Public Sector AI Advisory Board, which provides the department with structured feedback on its AI initiatives, forms, and usages.
Teaching Hospitals of Texas (Teaching Hospitals) recommended that the department establish by rule an additional 90-day period to allow governmental entities time to implement and comply with the adopted rule. The department declined to make this change as implementation is a part of the rulemaking process; governmental entities have several months between the department's proposal of the rule and its adoption to implement the changes.
Teaching Hospitals and Parkland Health recommended that the department create consistent reporting requirements for all hospital and health systems to align the more stringent requirements imposed on public and state hospitals by Senate Bill 1964 [89th Legislative Session (Regular)] with the more relaxed standards imposed upon public healthcare by House Bill 149 [89th Legislative Session (Regular)]. The department declined to make this change as the department does not have the statutory authority to do this.
Parkland Health recommended that the department establish health care-specific AI rules reflecting the existing health care regulatory landscape and prioritizing patient access to care over statutory requirements. The department declined to make this change as it does not have statutory authorization to do this.
The Council recommended that the department limit the scope of the AI Code of Ethics to only heightened scrutiny AI systems. The department declined to make this change as Senate Bill 1964 [89th Legislative Session (Regular)] directed the department to create an AI Code of Ethics for adoption by governmental entities that procure, develop, deploy, or use for AI systems generally and does not limit this code to only heightened scrutiny systems.
The Commission recommended that the department incorporate a specific exemption to disclosure under Texas Government Code Chapter 552 stating that disclosure requirements do not apply to information about AI systems related to fraud detection, deterrence, or investigation when that information is protected by state or federal law. The department declined to make this change as the department is not authorized to circumvent the Public Information Act by creating exemptions to disclosure. Public Information Act provisions may exempt from disclosure certain information about AI systems, but it is the agency's responsibility to make that assertion to the Office of the Attorney General.
The Commission recommended that the department amend 1 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 219 to specifically address the use of AI in code development. The department declined to make this change as the requirements articulated by the rules apply to all uses of AI, including AI for code development.
The Council recommended that the department define by rule the phrase "material change" as used by 1 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 219. The department declined to make this change as the phrase is lifted directly from statute where it is undefined, indicating the Texas Legislature intended it to have the common meaning.
The department employee recommended the department amend §219.1 to add definitions for either or both "real human review" or "careful thought." The department declined to add these definitions to rule as the department cannot regulate human error, and it is a governmental entity's responsibility to appoint responsible and competent staff.
The department employee recommended the department amend the proposed §219.1 definition for AI system to "any software inside a Business Intelligence or Data Analytics thing that uses machine learning or guesses to make predictions or sort data, even if the whole thing isn't called an AI product." The department declined to make this change as AI system is a term defined by statute.
The Council recommended that the department tie the definition of consequential decision found at §219.1(3) to whether an AI system was a controlling factor in making a decision. The department declined to make this change as both "consequential decision" and "controlling factor" are terms defined by statute, which the department does not have authority to change.
TechNet recommended that the department amend §219.11(a) to change from requiring a state agency to conduct a written assessment at the time of a material change to the time of a substantial modification. The department declined to make this change as this language mirrors the statute.
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.11(b)(2) to remove language regarding privacy concerns and the challenges that AI poses to implement safely. The department declined to make the change as recommended as privacy and safety in implementation are legitimate concerns of which agencies need to be aware.
TechNet recommended that the department clarify the rule to reflect distinctions between enterprise- and non-enterprise grade products. The department considered this comment and made a nonsubstantive change to the code of ethics preamble found at §219.11(b)(2) from "To the extent that AI systems are trained on or used to process PII, they raise significant privacy concerns" to "To the extent that AI systems are trained on or used to process PII, they may raise significant privacy concerns, particularly when the systems are deployed outside of a secure government environment." The department also made a nonsubstantive clarification to §219.11(h)(3) from "Many AI systems rely on vast amounts of PII to make predictions and decisions. Sharing PII with an AI tool may violate privacy laws and obligations the entity has to the individual" to "Many AI systems rely on vast amounts of PII to make predictions and decisions. Sharing PII with an AI tool may violate privacy laws and obligations the entity has to the individual, particularly when using a tool outside the governmental entity's secure environment." This clarifies existing language to emphasize that privacy concerns may be greater when using a tool outside of a secure environment.
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.11(c)(1) to incorporate language about how human oversight should be proportional to the level of risk associated with an AI system. The department declined to make this change as this concern is already addressed by §219.11(c)(2)(B).
The Council and TechNet recommended that the department amend §219.11(c)(2)(C) to allow governmental entities to pause or restrict, rather than disable, AI systems that have made a harmful or inaccurate decision as the current language requires AI systems to have a disable feature, which is not always possible. The department considered these comments and made the following nonsubstantive change to allow more expansive means to reduce harm from the AI system issue: "(C) Must ensure AI systems can be paused, restricted, or disabled until harmful or inaccurate decision making can be remedied."
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.11(d)(1) from "The data used to develop AI systems must adequately represent the subjects or people about which AI systems make judgments, decisions, or predictions. Incomplete or inaccurate data can result in unlawful harm" to "(1) The data used to develop AI systems must, to the greatest extent possible, represent the subjects or people about which AI systems make judgments, decisions, or predictions. Incomplete or inaccurate data can result in unlawful harm." The department declined to make this change as adequately is an appropriate level of alignment between the data used to develop the AI system and the AI system itself.
TechNet recommended that the department amend §219.11(e) to add a subsection (D) requiring IT administrators to understand the tools offered to organizations to allow them to control their deployments and ensure outputs are in line with expectation. The department declined to make this change as this requires the department to administer individual entity employee responsibilities in a way the department does not have authority to do.
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.11(f)(2)(A) to limit the redress application to heightened scrutiny AI systems that make consequential decisions "about rights or access to governmental services." The department considered this comment and made the following nonsubstantive change from "(A) Must provide a mechanism to seek redress for those impacted when an AI system makes a consequential decision that unfairly impacts an individual or group in a material way" to "(A) Must provide a mechanism to seek redress for those impacted when an AI system makes a consequential decision that results in unlawful harm about their rights or access to governmental services."
Workday and the Commission identified concerns about the use of the phrase "unfair impact" in §219.11(f)(2)(A) and recommended amending this section to tie redress when an AI system makes a consequential decision impacting an individual or group to "a consequential decision that results in unlawful harm." The department considered this comment and made the following nonsubstantive change that clarifies the intent of this subparagraph: "must provide a mechanism to seek redress for those impacted when an AI system makes a consequential decision that results in unlawful harm."
TechNet recommended that the department amend §219.11(f)(2)(B) to revise the contact requirements to reflect a standard method rather than a point of contact as the contact may change frequently. The department declined to make this change as a designated point of contact does not tie the requirement to a singular person. An entity may fulfill this requirement by directing to a generic inbox or contact form.
TechNet recommended that the department amend §219.11(g) from requiring governmental entities to demand transparency from developers of AI systems to expecting this transparency. The department declined to make this change as governmental entities must demand transparency for the systems they use to ensure public trust.
Workday and the Council recommended amending §219.11(g)(2)(C) to replace the phrase "material decisions," which is undefined by statute, with "consequential decisions," which is. The department considered this comment and accepted the recommended nonsubstantive change as the term material arose from the definition of consequential decision.
Teaching Hospitals and the Commission recommended that the department clarify §219.11(g)(2)(C) to reflect this subsection of the Code of Ethics applies only to public-facing AI systems. After consideration, the department accepted this change as it pertains to §219.11(g)(2)(C) and amended the language from "(C) Must disclose when individuals interact with an AI system and when an AI system is used to make consequential decisions about their rights or access to governmental services; and" to "(C) Must disclose when individuals interact with a public-facing AI system and when an AI system is used to make consequential decisions about their rights or access to governmental services; and."
Teaching Hospitals recommended that the department amend §219.11(g)(2)(C) to reflect that hospital districts, academic medical centers, and state and public hospitals can satisfy disclosure requirements by including a generalized statement in the patient consent forms as authorized by Texas Government Code § 2054.711(c). The department declined to make this change as the rule neither specifies disclosure methods nor references the standardized notice required by Texas Government Code § 2054.711.
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.11(g)(2)(D) to change "never" to "not." The department declined to make this change as the current language relays its intent.
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.11(h)(3) to distinguish between AI systems deployed within secure governmental environments and those designed for broader public use. The department considered this comment and made the following nonsubstantive change to this section from "(3) Many AI systems rely on vast amounts of PII to make predictions and decisions. Sharing PII with an AI tool may violate privacy laws and obligations the entity has to the individual" to "(3) Many AI systems rely on vast amounts of PII to make predictions and decisions. Sharing PII with an AI tool may violate privacy laws and obligations the entity has to the individual, particularly when using a tool outside the governmental entity's secure environment."
TechNet recommended that the department amend §219.11(i) to add "All governmental entities must utilize enterprise-grade AI systems designed such that these secure AI systems will maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the AI system as well as the data it contains even when unexpected events or changes in their environment occur." The department declined to make this change as this is too restrictive a requirement to include in rule.
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.11(i)(1) from "common security concerns in the AI context involve data poisoning or malicious code injection, exfiltration of models or data within the AI system, and improper access controls that result in unauthorized access to the AI system itself" to "common security concerns in the AI context may include data poisoning or malicious code injection, exfiltration of models or data within the AI system, and improper access controls that result in unauthorized access to the AI system itself." The department considered this comment and accepted the nonsubstantive change for clarity.
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.11(i)(2)(A)-(B) from "(2) Governmental entities: (A) Must monitor, secure, and test AI systems to prevent or limit security attacks; and (B) Must demand that AI system providers disclose known vulnerabilities and resolutions in a timely manner to the governmental entities deploying those systems" to "(2) Governmental entities: (A) Must monitor, secure, and test AI systems to prevent or limit security attacks including assessing and mitigating them for cybersecurity vulnerabilities; and (B) Must develop and implement a framework for reporting, assessing, and managing vulnerability disclosures for AI systems. Establishing a vulnerability disclosure process is critical to mitigating risk, establishing a robust security posture, and maintaining transparency and trust with the public." The department declined to make this change.
Workday recommended the department amend §219.11(j)(2)(B) to read "(B) Must ensure any vendors contracted to deploy or use AI systems on behalf of governmental entities are contractually bound to these AI ethical principles and any relevant laws or regulations governing the use of AI systems" so that AI developers are not required to comply with statewide AI ethical principles by virtue of their supply chain role. The department declined to make this change as AI developers who contract with state agencies are not exempt from the ethical principles.
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.11(j)(2)(B) to require governmental entities to only ensure their vendors are contractually bound to "relevant Texas State laws or regulations" rather than any relevant laws or regulations. The department declined to make this change as governmental entities are required to comply with all applicable laws, which may require entities to contract vendors to comply with other laws and regulations.
TechNet recommended that the department amend §219.11(j)(2)(B) to require governmental entities to allow contracted vendors to be bound to either the AI code of ethics or comparable vendor AI ethical principles. The department declined to make this change as governmental entities are required by law to adopt the AI code of ethics, which is the regulatory structure for AI ethics in Texas. This binds the state agency and, by extension, any contracting vendors to comply with the AI code of ethics.
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.22 to include language referencing the Texas Legislature's intent as specified by Texas Government Code § 2054.078. The department declined to make this change as statute controls without being cited by rule for the same purpose as its inclusion in law.
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.22 to remove the requirement for assessments to be written. The department declined to make this change as the statute requires state agencies to make a copy of the impact assessment available to DIR upon request, which indicates the Texas Legislature intended for the impact assessments to be both written and retained.
Parkland Health recommended that the department amend §219.22(b) to make the list of requirements for heightened scrutiny AI system impact assessments permissive rather than mandatory to allow public health systems to customize their risk assessments to exclude certain internal-facing AI systems from the definition of heightened scrutiny AI system. The department declined to make this change as Senate Bill 1964 [89th Legislative Session (Regular)] requires the department to establish by rule a required risk assessment for heightened scrutiny AI systems that evaluate "security risk, performance metrics, and transparency measures."
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.22(b)(1) to remove the requirement that risk assessments include known security risks. The department declined to make this change as Texas Government Code § 2054.703(b)(2) specifically requires the minimum risk management and governance standards to include the assessment and documentation of known security risks.
Workday recommended clarifying the performance metric required of governmental entity risk assessments enumerated at §219.22(b)(2) to either reflect that this requirement only applies to risk assessments conducted for state-agency developed AI systems or adjusting the performance metrics required as detailed technical information may not be available to a state agency if they procured the system from a third-party developer. The department considered this comment and made the following nonsubstantive change to the proposed language to clarify the initial intent: remove the initial subsections requiring "(A) measurements of the accuracy and relevance of the system's outputs; and (B) measurements of the operational aspects of the system, including model latency, uptime, and error rate" and instead require "AI system's performance metrics related to accuracy."
Authorship recommended the department cross reference AI governance in the data maturity tool established by 1 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 218 and combine the data maturity assessment required by Texas Government Code § 2054.515 and regulated by 1 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 218 with the AI impact assessment required by §219.23. The department declined to make a change as the data maturity assessment is a statutorily required evaluation that a state agency must complete each biennium whereas the impact assessment must be completed only when a state agency deploys or uses a heightened scrutiny AI system.
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.23(d)(1) to give vendors more flexibility in how the vendor demonstrates compliance with the minimum risk management standards. The department declined to make this change as the requirement for a vendor to conduct an impact assessment is permissive rather than mandatory and does not prescribe the requirements of such an impact assessment.
TechNet recommended that the department amend §219.23(d)(1) to indicate that impact assessments provided by a vendor to a state agency "will be treated as vendor confidential and proprietary and not subject to FOIA." The department declined to make this change as Texas Government Code § 2054.708 already exempts impact assessments conducted on a heightened scrutiny AI system from release under the Public Information Act. Furthermore, as the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to state agencies, it would be inappropriate to incorporate this language.
The Council recommended that the department amend §219.24(d) to encourage vendors to implement approaches within the AI risk management framework rather than contractually requiring them to implement it. The department declined to make this change as recommended because Texas Government Code § 2054.703 requires the minimum standards to specifically mitigate the risk of unlawful harm by contractually requiring vendors to implement risk management frameworks when deploying heightened scrutiny AI systems on behalf of state agencies or local governments.
TechNet recommended that the department requesting that the department amend §219.24(d) to allow vendors to implement risk management frameworks that are materially equivalent to the National Institute of Standards and Technology AI risk management framework currently allowed. After considering this comment, the department made a nonsubstantive change to clarify §219.24(d) to allow for vendors to implement either an AI risk management framework such as that published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or a comparable standard.
Description of Adopted Changes
Within Subchapter A, the department adopts §219.1 and §219.11, which introduce specialized definitions required by the rule, including the terms "AI--Artificial Intelligence", "Artificial Intelligence System", "Consequential Decision", Controlling Factor", "Department", "Executive Head", Governmental Entities", Heightened Scrutiny Artificial Intelligence System", "Information Resources", "Information Resources Technologies", "Local Government", "Personal Identifying Information (PII)", "Principal Basis", "Unlawful Harm." This subchapter also establishes a code of ethics and the ethical principles of artificial intelligence.
The department adopts subchapter B, §§219.20 - 219.24, which establish the minimum standards required by Texas Government Code § 2054.703 as enacted pursuant to Senate Bill 1964 of the Eighty-ninth Regular Session. In §219.21, the department establishes governmental entity's responsibility to AI Risk Management by designating an AI Risk Officer. In §219.22, the department establishes the requirements for the AI risk assessment for heightened scrutiny AI Systems in which the state agency or local government shall conduct a written AI risk assessment to consider the probability and severity of harm that could occur as the result of implementation of the AI system. In §219.23, the department establishes a vendor's responsibility of conducting an impact assessment of a heightened scrutiny AI system. In §219.24, the department establishes the guidelines for AI framework, policies, and trainings required by Texas Government Code § 2054.703(b)(4) as enacted pursuant to Senate Bill 1964 in the Eighty-ninth Regular Session.
SUBCHAPTER
A.
The amendments are adopted pursuant to Texas Government Code § 2054.052(a), which authorizes the department to adopt rules as necessary to implement its responsibilities under Texas Government Code Chapter 2054, Texas Government Code § 2054.702, which requires the department to establish by rule an AI code of ethics for use by governmental entities, and Texas Government Code § 2054.703, which requires the department to establish minimum risk management and governance standards for the development, procurement, deployment, and use of heightened scrutiny artificial intelligence systems by a state agency or local government.
§219.11.
(a) As required by Texas Government Code § 2054.702, state agencies and local governments shall adopt the AI Code of Ethics established by this section and follow the ethical principles included herein as they procure, develop, deploy, or use artificial intelligence systems.
(b) Preamble
(1) AI systems have the potential to transform the way our state and local governments serve Texans. AI systems can create efficiencies, support economic and scientific advancement, and improve the safety and well-being of our communities. The State of Texas supports the use of AI systems by governmental entities to improve the services they deliver to Texans and to lead in innovative AI adoption in the public sector.
(2) While they have significant potential value, AI systems also pose substantial risks if not implemented ethically and responsibly. AI risks vary based on the system involved, how it is used, and who uses it. AI systems are often trained on large amounts of data from a variety of sources, which can lead to inaccurate outputs. To the extent that AI systems are trained on or used to process PII, they may raise significant privacy concerns, particularly when the systems are deployed outside of a secure government environment. Malicious actors can utilize AI to develop more advanced cyberattacks, bypass security measures, and exploit vulnerabilities in systems. These and other AI risks make it a uniquely challenging technology for governmental entities to use safely, but with appropriate guardrails, governmental entities can limit the risks of AI and secure its many benefits for Texans.
(3) Governmental entities must limit the potential harm of AI systems by managing risk and prioritizing trustworthy and responsible development and deployment of AI consistent with the National Institute of Standards and Technology AI Risk Management Framework. Creating trustworthy AI requires balancing each of these principles based on the identified risks of an AI system and the context in which it is used.
(4) This section articulates the principles of ethical AI implementation that governmental entities must strive for when procuring, developing, designing, or using AI systems.
(c) Human Oversight and Control
(1) Human oversight plays a crucial role in ensuring that AI systems operate ethically. While AI can analyze vast amounts of data much faster--and sometimes more accurately--than humans, it lacks the human judgment necessary to ensure that its decisions align with societal values and the rights granted to individuals under the law. Ensuring human control over AI systems mitigates risks of inaccurate or undesirable outputs and allows for revision of the rules established during development of the system and to the data that supports the system's decision-making.
(2) Governmental entities:
(A) Must deploy AI systems in ways that enable humans to review and analyze inputs and outputs at appropriate intervals throughout the AI lifecycle;
(B) May incorporate a level of human oversight reasonably commensurate to the risks associated with a particular AI system, with heightened scrutiny AI systems requiring increased human oversight relative to lower risk systems; and
(C) Must ensure AI systems can be paused, restricted, or disabled until harmful or inaccurate decision making can be remedied.
(d) Fairness
(1) The data used to develop AI systems must adequately represent the subjects or people about which AI systems make judgments, decisions, or predictions. Incomplete or inaccurate data can result in unlawful harm.
(2) Governmental entities:
(A) Must ensure their use of AI systems does not infringe upon the legally protected rights and liberties of the individuals they serve or result in unlawful harm; and
(B) Must implement data governance practices for AI systems throughout the AI system's lifecycle to ensure fairness.
(e) Accuracy
(1) While AI systems are overall improving in their ability to deliver more accurate results, inaccurate outputs remain a significant risk when using AI systems.
(2) Governmental entities:
(A) Must train their employees to understand the importance of verifying AI outcomes for accuracy;
(B) Must formalize processes for monitoring system accuracy before the deployment of an AI system and throughout its life cycle, as a system's accuracy may change over time; and
(C) Shall, when feasible, implement processes to improve the accuracy of AI systems by training the systems using human feedback or improving retrieval-augmented generation by ensuring the accuracy and relevance of the underlying data used by the tool to develop answers.
(f) Redress
(1) Providing a method for redress will promote public trust in both the AI system and in the entity that deploys it.
(2) Governmental entities:
(A) Must provide a mechanism to seek redress for those impacted when an AI system makes a consequential decision that results in unlawful harm about their rights or access to governmental services;
(B) Must have a designated point of contact for individuals to address when seeking information about an unfair consequential decision; and
(C) Must develop internal procedures to allow employees to identify and remedy negative impacts caused by the use of AI systems.
(g) Transparency
(1) Establishing transparency for AI systems means providing information about the data, models, and outputs of an AI system to both the individuals interacting with the system and those deploying it. Strong transparency practices will build public trust in the AI systems governmental entities use.
(2) Governmental entities:
(A) Must collaborate with developers of AI systems and demand transparency to understand how a system operates, the source of the data the system was trained on, and its intended use cases;
(B) Must strive to understand the capabilities of the system and how it makes decisions;
(C) Must disclose when individuals interact with a public-facing AI system and when an AI system is used to make consequential decisions about their rights or access to governmental services; and
(D) Must never represent AI systems as human when interacting with the public.
(h) Data Privacy
(1) Governmental entities have a responsibility to protect the PII they collect and process about individuals, and both legal and ethical restrictions exist on what PII entities share with third parties. Data privacy principles likewise apply to the PII governmental entities process in and share with AI systems.
(2) The most effective method for protecting PII is through data minimization.
(3) Many AI systems rely on vast amounts of PII to make predictions and decisions. Sharing PII with an AI tool may violate privacy laws and obligations the entity has to the individual, particularly when using a tool outside the governmental entity's secure environment.
(4) Governmental entities:
(A) May collect and maintain only that PII needed for operations and must establish a process to delete PII consistent with records retention schedules and other legal requirements.
(B) Must strive to understand what PII the AI system uses, how that PII has been and will be collected, and how the tool uses, stores, and shares PII with third parties prior to using any government-held PII in an AI system;
(C) Must train employees about the risk of inputting sensitive or PII into publicly available AI systems that use inputs to train the model and share those inputs with other users of the AI system outside of the governmental entity; and
(D) Must strive to practice data minimization and ensure they abide by any purpose limitations granted when the PII was first collected, or as expressly allowed by law.
(i) Security
(1) AI systems are subject to security vulnerabilities. Common security concerns in the AI context may include data poisoning or malicious code injection, exfiltration of models or data within the AI system, and improper access controls that result in unauthorized access to the AI system itself. Secure AI systems will maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the AI system as well as the data it contains even when unexpected events or changes in their environment or use occur.
(2) Governmental entities:
(A) Must monitor, secure, and test AI systems to prevent or limit security attacks; and
(B) Must demand that AI system providers disclose known vulnerabilities and resolutions in a timely manner to the governmental entities deploying those systems.
(j) Accountability and Liability
(1) While governmental entities may delegate tasks and decision making to AI systems, the entities remain accountable for the decisions the AI systems make and the outcomes they produce. Use of AI systems for employment-related tasks or to make consequential decisions poses heightened risks.
(2) Governmental entities:
(A) Must provide training to employees on how to use AI systems in an effective, safe, and ethical way;
(B) Must ensure their vendors are contractually bound to these AI ethical principles and any relevant laws or regulations governing the use of AI systems; and
(C) Must ensure AI systems they deploy comply with the legal obligations they have at both the state and federal level.
(3) When deploying AI systems, governmental entities must establish appropriate retention schedules for the AI system's records and consider the Public Information Act implications related to the storage of data inputs and outputs.
(k) Evaluation
(1) AI systems can change over time, as can the purposes for which they are used.
(2) Governmental entities:
(A) Must establish methods for regular evaluation of AI systems to ensure the systems provide ongoing benefit to the populations they serve; and
(B) Must document such evaluations.
(l) Documentation
(1) Documentation provides a critical element for managing AI risk. Consistent documentation of preliminary assessments, ongoing monitoring and testing, and complaints provides governmental entities insight into the operations and improvements of their AI systems over their lifecycle. Documentation allows entities to evaluate the value of AI systems and determine where best to spend resources in further developing AI solutions.
(2) Governmental entities should maintain records of:
(A) The sources of data used in the AI system; and
(B) How the AI system is modified throughout the system's life cycle.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 26, 2026.
TRD-202600994
Joshua Godbey
General Counsel
Department of Information Resources
Effective date: March 18, 2026
Proposal publication date: November 7, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 475-4531
SUBCHAPTER
B.
The amendments are adopted pursuant to Texas Government Code § 2054.052(a), which authorizes the department to adopt rules as necessary to implement its responsibilities under Texas Government Code Chapter 2054, and Texas Government Code § 2157.068(f), which authorizes the department to adopt rules as necessary to implement its responsibilities under Texas Government Code Chapter 2157. This subchapter establishes the minimum standards required by Texas Government Code § 2054.703 as enacted pursuant to Senate Bill 1964 of the Eighty-ninth Regular Session.
§219.21.
(a) A state agency or local government shall designate an employee as the AI Risk Officer.
(1) The AI Risk Officer is responsible for promoting ethical AI system procurement, development, deployment, and use within the state agency or local government, consistent with the AI Code of Ethics established by this chapter and the AI Risk Management Framework published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
(2) If a state agency or local government deploys a heightened scrutiny AI system, the AI Risk Officer is responsible for ensuring that the risk assessment is completed for that system. The AI Risk Officer shall evaluate the completed risk assessment and ensure that the heightened scrutiny AI system is deployed consistent with the minimum standards established by this chapter.
(3) In filling this role, the state agency or local government may employ an individual solely for this purpose or may add this responsibility to a current employee's existing job duties.
(b) A state agency or local government shall establish a process to identify and inventory all implementations of AI systems that qualify as heightened scrutiny AI systems.
§219.22.
(a) Before a state agency or local government develops, procures, deploys, or uses a heightened scrutiny AI system and at the time that a material change is made to the system, the state agency or local government shall conduct a written AI risk assessment to consider the probability and severity of harm that could occur as the result of implementation of the AI system.
(b) The risk assessment shall consider and document:
(1) The AI system's known security risks and mitigation steps available to limit those risks;
(2) The heightened scrutiny AI system's performance metrics relating to accuracy and operational efficiency; and
(3) The heightened scrutiny AI system's transparency, including information about:
(A) The system's algorithms and how the system makes decisions;
(B) The data used to train the system's model; and
(C) The availability of inputs and outputs to monitor the system's decision-making over time.
(c) When a state agency or local government is deploying any heightened scrutiny AI system, the AI Risk Officer shall:
(1) Review the completed written risk assessment prepared for that system prior to system deployment; and
(2) Approve or deny deployment of the system based on the risk and mitigation measures identified by the completed written risk assessment. At a minimum, the AI Risk Officer shall notify the state agency or local government's executive head or their designee of a decision to deploy a heightened scrutiny AI system. A state agency or local government may also establish a process for consultation or final approval by the executive head or their designee, as the state agency or local government determines appropriate.
(d) The state agency or local government shall maintain a record of the completed written risk assessment and all relevant documents for as long as required by the applicable state records retention schedule.
§219.24.
(a) This section establishes the guidelines required by Texas Government Code § 2054.703(b)(4) as enacted pursuant to Senate Bill 1964 in the Eighty-ninth Regular Session.
(b) When a state agency or local government deploys or uses a heightened scrutiny AI system, they must identify the acceptable use cases for such system, identify its limitations, and adopt an acceptable use policy to prevent uses other than those approved by the agency for the heightened scrutiny artificial intelligence system. All employees must be adequately trained on the acceptable use policy.
(c) A state agency or local government that deploys or uses a heightened scrutiny AI system shall provide employees or contractors who access, use, or manage the heightened scrutiny AI system with training regarding identified risks and appropriate methods for mitigating those risks.
(d) A state agency or local government that contracts with vendors to deploy a heightened scrutiny AI system shall mitigate third party risk by contractually requiring those vendors to implement an AI risk management framework such as that published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or a comparable standard for heightened scrutiny AI systems.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 26, 2026.
TRD-202600995
Joshua Godbey
General Counsel
Department of Information Resources
Effective date: March 18, 2026
Proposal publication date: November 7, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 475-4531