TRAIGA Compliance Guide: Texas AI Law Requirements for 2026
The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act took effect January 1, 2026. This guide covers compliance requirements and the NIST AI RMF safe harbor that can shield your organization from enforcement.
What Is TRAIGA?
The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) is Texas's comprehensive AI governance law, signed by Governor Greg Abbott in June 2025 and effective as of January 1, 2026. Unlike the EU AI Act or Colorado's risk-based approach, TRAIGA focuses on intent-based liability: it prohibits specific harmful uses of AI rather than categorizing systems by risk level.
TRAIGA applies to any organization that:
- Conducts business in Texas
- Offers products or services used by Texas residents
- Develops or deploys AI systems in Texas
Texas has the second-largest state economy in the US. If you deploy AI nationally, TRAIGA probably applies to you.
TRAIGA's Prohibited AI Practices
TRAIGA prohibits developing or deploying AI systems with the intent to:
- Manipulate human behavior to encourage self-harm, harm to others, or criminal activity
- Infringe constitutional rights guaranteed under the US Constitution
- Discriminate unlawfully against protected classes under state or federal civil rights laws
- Produce harmful content including child sexual abuse material or non-consensual deepfakes
- Conduct social scoring (government entities only)
- Biometric identification without consent (government entities only)
TRAIGA requires proof of intent to discriminate. Disparate impact alone doesn't establish a violation. This is a major departure from the EU AI Act and Colorado.
The NIST AI RMF Safe Harbor
Most legal briefings underplay this: TRAIGA creates a safe harbor for organizations that substantially comply with the NIST AI Risk Management Framework.
Under TRAIGA, you have an affirmative defense if you:
- Substantially comply with the most recent NIST AI RMF (including the Generative AI Profile)
- Discover violations through internal testing, red-teaming, or adversarial testing
- Follow guidelines set by applicable state agencies
- Receive feedback through documented internal review processes
Documented AI governance becomes your legal defense, not just operational hygiene.
Organizations already implementing NIST AI RMF for federal contracts or EU AI Act compliance can leverage existing documentation. The key is maintaining auditable evidence that maps your governance activities to the framework's four core functions (Govern, Map, Measure, Manage).
TRAIGA Enforcement: What to Expect
The Texas Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority under TRAIGA. Key enforcement mechanics:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Cure period | 60 days to remedy violations after AG notice |
| Curable violations | $10,000–$12,000 per violation |
| Uncurable violations | $80,000–$200,000 per violation |
| Continuing violations | $2,000–$40,000 per day |
| Private right of action | None (AG enforcement only) |
The AG must establish an online complaint portal for consumers. Expect scrutiny of AI transparency in healthcare and government-facing applications first.
TRAIGA Compliance Checklist
Immediate Actions (Q1 2026)
1. Inventory your AI systems
Document all AI systems that touch Texas residents. TRAIGA's definition is broad: "any machine-based system that infers from inputs how to generate outputs, including content, decisions, predictions, or recommendations."
Customer-facing chatbots count. So do automated decision-making systems in hiring, lending, insurance. Content moderation, recommendation engines, fraud detection, risk scoring. All of it.
2. Document intent and purpose
For each AI system, maintain written documentation of:
- Intended purpose and use cases
- Guardrails preventing prohibited uses
- Data governance and training data sources
- Performance metrics and known limitations
- Post-deployment monitoring procedures
- Audit trail of governance decisions and approvals
- Version history of model changes and risk assessments
- Human review records for AI-assisted decisions
3. Implement NIST AI RMF alignment
Adopt the NIST AI Risk Management Framework as your governance foundation. Key functions to document:
- Govern: Establish AI governance policies, roles, and accountability
- Map: Identify and document AI risks in your specific context
- Measure: Assess risks using quantitative and qualitative methods
- Manage: Implement controls and monitor effectiveness
Many organizations are adopting AI governance platforms that pre-map controls to NIST AI RMF, automating the documentation trail needed to demonstrate substantial compliance. Manual spreadsheet tracking creates audit risk when you can't prove systematic implementation.
4. Establish testing protocols
Create documented procedures for:
- Adversarial testing and red-teaming
- Bias detection and fairness assessments
- Ongoing monitoring for model drift
- Incident response for identified issues
- Continuous compliance monitoring (not just point-in-time assessments)
How TRAIGA Compares to Other AI Regulations
| Regulation | Approach | Liability Standard | Private Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRAIGA (Texas) | Prohibited practices | Intent-based | No |
| Colorado AI Act | High-risk AI | Reasonable care | No |
| EU AI Act | Risk categorization | Strict liability (high-risk) | Yes (limited) |
| Illinois HB 3773 | Employment AI | Discrimination | Yes |
For organizations with exposure to multiple jurisdictions, the compliance burden multiplies without a unified governance approach. Companies report 10x efficiency gains when implementing a single control framework that maps to all applicable regulations versus managing each separately.
TRAIGA's intent-based standard offers more predictability for businesses than disparate-impact approaches, but it requires robust documentation to demonstrate good faith compliance.
The Regulatory Sandbox
TRAIGA establishes a 36-month regulatory sandbox administered by the Texas Department of Information Resources. Approved participants can test AI systems without standard state licensing requirements, enforcement actions, or punitive agency action.
Note: Core TRAIGA prohibitions (manipulation, discrimination, harmful content) still apply within the sandbox.
To apply, submit:
- Detailed description of the AI system
- Benefit assessment for consumers and public safety
- Risk mitigation plans
- Proof of federal AI compliance
Building Your TRAIGA Compliance Program
The organizations best positioned for TRAIGA are those running AI governance as an operational function, not a consultant project that produces a PDF and collects dust.
The baseline:
- Centralized AI inventory with risk classifications and ownership
- Documented governance policies aligned with NIST AI RMF
- Automated monitoring for model performance and drift
- Audit trails for AI-related decisions and changes
- Incident response procedures with clear escalation
Organizations already pursuing ISO/IEC 42001 certification or EU AI Act compliance will find 60-70% overlap with TRAIGA requirements. A unified governance approach (one control framework mapped to multiple regulations) reduces duplicate effort while building the documentation trail TRAIGA's safe harbor requires.
Next Steps
TRAIGA is now in effect. Companies deploying AI in Texas or serving Texas residents should:
- Audit current AI systems against TRAIGA's prohibited practices
- Implement NIST AI RMF to establish the safe harbor defense
- Document everything: intent, testing, monitoring, remediation
- Monitor AG guidance as enforcement priorities emerge
The 60-day cure perio±d gives you a buffer. Don't wait for a notice to start.
Resources for TRAIGA Compliance
Building TRAIGA compliance on spreadsheets creates audit risk when you can't demonstrate systematic NIST AI RMF implementation. See how AI governance platforms automate the safe harbor documentation trail →
Free resources: