Pennsylvania Limits Public Access to Officials' AI Conversations

State agency ruling shields many government employees' chats with AI chatbots from public records requests

Published on Feb. 23, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A ruling from Pennsylvania's Office of Open Records has largely sided with the Shapiro administration's argument that many state government employees' conversations and prompts with artificial intelligence chatbots are exempt from public records requests. The decision reveals a potential gap in Pennsylvania's public records law and raises concerns from transparency advocates about government accountability in the use of AI technology.

Why it matters

The ruling could block the public from accessing how government officials are using AI tools like ChatGPT for tasks like responding to constituent emails, drafting policies, and generating other government materials. Transparency advocates argue this limits accountability, even as the Shapiro administration has touted the productivity gains from embracing AI in state operations.

The details

WITF, a public media outlet, sought employees' ChatGPT logs from over two dozen state agencies last year under Pennsylvania's public records law. The governor's office rejected the requests, arguing the chats were exempt as 'notes and working papers' and 'internal, predecisional deliberations.' The independent Office of Open Records largely sided with the administration, though the ruling does not mean all AI chat logs are exempt - only those proven to be solely for personal use. The Shapiro administration has a policy requiring disclosure of AI use, but the policy allows drafts reviewed by humans to be exempt, potentially shielding most AI-generated content.

  • In 2024, the Shapiro administration conducted a pilot program with OpenAI to implement ChatGPT-like tools in state government operations.
  • In February 2026, Pennsylvania's Office of Open Records ruled in favor of the Shapiro administration's arguments to limit public access to state employees' AI conversations.

The players

Josh Shapiro

The Governor of Pennsylvania who oversaw the state's pilot program to implement AI tools like ChatGPT in government operations.

Melissa Melewsky

The media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, who stated that every AI chat is 'presumptively public' unless proven exempt by an agency.

Philip Hensely-Robin

The executive director of the good-government advocacy group Common Cause Pennsylvania, who said increased transparency is needed for public confidence in the state's AI initiatives.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“There cannot be accountability without access. There's going to be a struggle to have any bright line test apply here (for AI).”

— Melissa Melewsky, Media Law Counsel, Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association (witf.org)

“For the public to be fully on board and to have confidence in these initiatives, that would really benefit from increased transparency about how (AI is) being used and if the safeguards that the administration has put in place are actually being followed.”

— Philip Hensely-Robin, Executive Director, Common Cause Pennsylvania (witf.org)

What’s next

The Shapiro administration maintains that the ChatGPT summary did not meaningfully influence the Housing Action Plan, so no disclosure of AI use was necessary. However, transparency advocates argue that the public needs more clarity on how the state is following its own policies around AI use in government.

The takeaway

This case highlights the tension between government efficiency gains from AI tools and the need for public transparency and accountability. As more state and local governments embrace AI, there will likely be ongoing debates over where to draw the line on public access to government records generated with these technologies.