WisconsinProposal would restrict genetic equipment and access to genome data
The proposal would restrict some genetic equipment at state-funded facilities and limit where organizations could store Wisconsin residents’ genome data.
What it does
State-funded medical and research facilities would be barred from using certain genetic sequencers and software made by listed foreign adversaries or related companies.
Organizations could not store Wisconsin residents’ genome data in listed foreign adversary countries or let people located there access it, except for certain research studies.
A violation would carry a $10,000 forfeiture for each violation; the attorney general could investigate, and anyone could report a possible violation.
Argument forWisconsin residents’ genome data might be harder for people in listed foreign adversary countries to access under the proposal.
Argument againstFacilities and organizations could face costs or disruption if they had to replace covered equipment or software, or change how they store and protect genome data.
More detail
State-funded medical and research facilities would be barred from using certain genetic sequencers and software. Medical facilities must receive state money and conduct research or testing related to genetic analysis or the human genome; research facilities must receive state money and conduct related research. The covered devices or software must be produced by a listed foreign adversary, a company organized there, or its owned or controlled subsidiary or affiliate.
Organizations would be barred from storing covered genome data in listed foreign adversary countries and would have to keep it inaccessible to people there. This applies to medical and research facilities, companies, and nonprofit organizations handling Wisconsin residents’ human genome sequencing data. The rule covers human genome sequencing data of Wisconsin residents. It does not apply to data collected in a clinical trial or biomedical research study subject to, or conducted in accordance with, 28 CFR Part 202.
A violation would carry a $10,000 forfeiture for each violation; the attorney general could investigate and bring a state action to collect it. The forfeiture applies to violations of the restrictions on genetic sequencers, software, and genome data. Anyone could notify the attorney general of an actual or potential violation.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- May 13Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82Latest
- May 12Placed on calendar 5-12-2026 pursuant to Joint Rule 82 (2)(a)
- Mar 27Report vetoed by the Governor Tony Evers on 3-27-2026Major
- Mar 26Presented to the Governor on 3-26-2026To Governor
- Feb 20Report correctly enrolled on 2-20-2026Minor
- Feb 18Received from Senate concurred inMinor
- Vote recorded CONCURRENCE. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 18Ordered immediately messaged
- Feb 18Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 20, Noes 13Passed Senate
- Feb 18Rules suspended to give bill its third reading
- Feb 18Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Feb 18Read a second timeMinor
- Feb 17Placed on calendar 2-18-2026 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Vote recorded Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 17Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2
- Feb 4Available for scheduling
- Vote recorded Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs, Ayes 3, Noes 2. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 4Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs, Ayes 3, Noes 2Minor
- Feb 4Executive action taken
- Jan 26Read first time and referred to committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal AffairsMinor
- Jan 22Received from AssemblyMinor
- Vote recorded SHALL THE DECISION OF THE CHAIR STAND. Result: pass.Lower
- Vote recorded PASSAGE. Result: pass.Lower
- Jan 22Ordered immediately messaged
- Jan 22Read a third time and passed, Ayes 53, Noes 44Passed Assembly
- Jan 22Rules suspended
- Jan 22Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Jan 22Assembly Amendment 1 adoptedMajor
- Jan 22Decision of the Chair upheld, Ayes 53, Noes 44
- Jan 22Decision of the Chair appealed
- Jan 22Point of order that Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) well taken
- Jan 22Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 offered by Representative McGuireMinor
- Jan 22Read a second timeMinor
- Jan 21Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representative MosesMinor
- Jan 20Placed on calendar 1-22-2026 by Committee on Rules
- Jan 16Referred to committee on RulesMinor
- Vote recorded Report passage recommended by Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, Ayes 10, Noes 5. Result: pass.Lower
- Jan 16Report passage recommended by Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, Ayes 10, Noes 5Minor
- Jan 14Executive action taken
- Jan 6Public hearing held
- 2025
- Dec 16Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Dec 2Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Nov 19Read first time and referred to Committee on Criminal Justice and Public SafetyMinor
- Nov 19Introduced by Representatives Moses, Dallman, Callahan, Kreibich, Kurtz, Piwowarczyk, Mursau, Neylon, Dittrich, Knodl, Green, Behnke and Brill; cosponsored by Senators Testin, Tomczyk, Jacque and NassIntroduced
HealthcareAI & Privacy