Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707

Where it actually stands

“On June 10, 2025, the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (Standing Committee) approved publication of proposed amendments to the following: Appellate Rule 15; Bankruptcy Rule 2002, Official Forms 101 and 106C; Civil Rules 7.1, 26, 41, 45, and 81; Criminal Rule 17; and Evidence Rule 609 and new Rule 707. The comment period was open from Aug. 15, 2025 to Feb. 16, 2026.”

That sentence is from uscourts.gov, and the whole correction is in one word. The Standing Committee approved publication for comment. That is the second of six stages, not the last.

• 1Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules proposes.
• 2Standing Committee approves publication for comment. Done, 10 June 2025.
• 3Public comment. Closed 16 February 2026.
• 4Advisory Committee considers comments and decides whether to recommend final approval.
• 5Standing Committee, then the Judicial Conference, then the Supreme Court.
• 6Lies before Congress, then takes effect, ordinarily on 1 December.

Where it stands now

At its meeting on 3 and 4 June 2026 the Standing Committee declined to advance Rule 707 and returned it for revision and further study, alongside the deepfakes question, after the Advisory Committee recorded “greater overall concerns” on 7 May 2026. A mini-conference on 15 October 2026 is part of that continuing review.

So there is no effective date. The rule has not been approved by the Judicial Conference, it is no longer on the Judiciary’s comment page, and the review is continuing.

On 14 August 2026 the Judiciary opened its next comment cycle. The proposed amendments are to Evidence Rule 104(a) and (b), on the standard of proof for preliminary questions and conditional relevance, and Evidence Rule 902(1)(A), on the self-authenticating public records of federally recognised Indian Tribes and Nations, with comments open to 15 February 2027. We read the 209-page preliminary draft in full. The words “artificial intelligence”, “machine-generated”, “deepfake” and “Rule 707” do not appear in it. The published amendment to Rule 104(b) concerns conditional relevance; it does not address deepfakes or machine-generated evidence. The one thing every stage of this record agrees on is the narrow point we verified first: Rule 707 is not in force, and no date for it exists.

Why the error matters

Because people are planning around it. A firm that believes Rule 707 is adopted may be telling clients that machine-generated evidence is already subject to a federal reliability standard. It is not. Meanwhile the actual position is the more interesting one: the United States has no rule on deepfake or machine-generated evidence, while Qatar has had one since January 2026 and New South Wales has regulated AI in expert reports since February 2025.

The gap is not going to be filled by a federal rule on any published calendar: the proposal is back with its drafters for revision and further study. It is being filled in the meantime by individual judges’ standing orders and by the sanctions record.

Sources

• United States Courts, Proposed Amendments Published for Public Comment, read 5 August 2026 and again 7 September 2026, quoted above
• Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules, August 2026, 209 pages, read in full 7 September 2026
• Records and Archives of the Rules Committees, agenda books
• National Law Review, on the contested proposal and the June 2026 outcome. The June outcome and the 15 October 2026 mini-conference are stated on the strength of this reporting; the committee’s own minutes remain the primary record.

Related

• Federal Rules of Evidence 901 and 902, which are in force
• Qatar, which does have a deepfake disclosure rule
• Australia, on AI in expert reports
• Every verified AI standing order

Checked 5 August 2026 and again 7 September 2026. Status verified at source; the June 2026 committee outcome is reported only, and flagged as such. Information, not legal advice.

Common questions

Has Federal Rule of Evidence 707 been approved?

No. Rule 707 was published for comment on 10 June 2025, with the comment period running from 15 August 2025 to 16 February 2026, and it was never approved. On 14 August 2026 the United States Courts' own page moved on to a new comment cycle, proposed amendments to Evidence Rules 104 and 902 with a comment period to 15 February 2027, and Rule 707 is not on it. The 209-page preliminary draft for that cycle does not mention artificial intelligence, machine-generated evidence or deepfakes. Approval for publication was never adoption, and the proposal has now dropped out of the publication cycle altogether.

What would Rule 707 do?

It addresses machine-generated evidence: output produced by a process or system, offered without a human expert witness, and would subject it to the reliability standards that apply to expert testimony. It has been considered alongside a separate question about deepfakes and fabricated evidence.

When could Rule 707 take effect?

There is no effective date. After the Advisory Committee's review of 7 May 2026, the Standing Committee declined to advance the proposal at its June 2026 meeting and returned it for revision and further study; a mini-conference on 15 October 2026 is part of that continuing review. A federal rule must still be approved by the Advisory Committee, the Standing Committee, the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court, and then lie before Congress. Any page publishing an effective date for Rule 707 is publishing a guess.

Is there any rule on deepfake evidence in the United States?

Not yet at federal level. By contrast, Qatar's QICDRC Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 has required since 6 January 2026 that visual or audio evidence generated or enhanced using multimedia AI be disclosed with its source, and provides that suspected undisclosed deepfakes may be excluded and investigated.