AI regulation in Congress is drawing fresh urgency after a series of stark industry warnings, yet lawmakers are running out of time and agreement as they prepare to leave Washington until after the November election.
Leaders remain divided on whether and how to intervene. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana said Tuesday that AI should be handled with “common sense” and urged major labs to self-regulate. He cautioned against any pause in development, arguing it would jeopardize the U.S. competitive edge against China.
Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York pressed for immediate legislative action aligned with industry voices calling to slow development to safeguard the public.
The unease cuts across ideological lines. At a Tuesday event in Washington, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders separately advocated for tighter limits on the technology.
Quick action is unlikely, but lawmakers are not starting from scratch
OpenAI and Anthropic, often at odds over what rules are needed, recently backed allowing independent watchdogs to evaluate AI development processes. On Capitol Hill, efforts have been building for years.
A bipartisan House task force issued recommendations in 2024, and earlier this year Reps. Jay Obernolte of California and Lori Trahan of Massachusetts unveiled a comprehensive bipartisan framework.
Those proposals did not gain traction with party leaders. Republicans remain split on strategy, and Democrats appear inclined to wait until the next Congress, anticipating potential changes in control of one or both chambers in January.
A fight over who should do the regulating
A central question is whether federal law should preempt state-level AI rules, a position favored by the Trump administration. Rep. Kat Cammack of Florida said in March that preemption will be a difficult issue, noting companies cannot navigate 50 different regulatory frameworks.
While Republicans typically champion states’ rights, some House GOP leaders, including Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, have supported broad limits on states’ authority to regulate AI. Many Democrats and some Republicans oppose that approach.
Daniel Cochrane, a senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies’ Family First Tech initiative, argued that states, including Texas, Florida and Utah, have led on accountability while Congress has stalled. He warned that a sweeping federal block on state rules could yield inaction.
Nicole Alvarez, a senior tech policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, said most policymakers agree AI demands a policy response. “The real fight is what governance looks like,” she said, adding that a federal framework could still constrain states that want stronger consumer protections.
Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of the Chamber of Progress, cautioned that a patchwork of state laws is creating a muddled national standard by default.
He favors federal leadership but sees little momentum to draft detailed standards before the midterms.
Despite the gridlock, some areas of consensus may emerge. Child safety protections are a likely common ground.
Alvarez said certain uses of AI should be prohibited outright, including systems that generate child sexual abuse material. Cochrane cited Sen. Josh Hawley’s GUARD Act, which would restrict AI companions for minors and impose criminal liability for creating sexually explicit chatbots.
Kovacevich urged greater federal investments to compete with China, saying Beijing treats AI as an existential race and is backing that view with substantial government support.
He argued the United States has not matched that level of commitment.
AI regulation in Congress remains uncertain
What comes next may hinge on control of Congress in January and whether leaders can bridge differences over preemption, independent oversight, and targeted bans.
For now, momentum has met the calendar, and the path to comprehensive AI legislation remains unclear.
One Response