June 8: This week in AI federal policy
DC/ai Decoded: A weekly newsletter on developments in artificial intelligence, quantum, and data federal policy
This week decoded
President Trump signed his anticipated AI executive order, advancing a narrower, voluntary framework that allows the federal government up to 30 days to review frontier AI models prior to public release. The order establishes a Treasury-led AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, directs the NSA to designate “covered frontier models,” and instructs the Attorney General to prioritize prosecutions of AI-enabled cyber intrusions, while explicitly prohibiting any mandatory licensing, preclearance, or permitting regime.
In parallel, Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum directing national security agencies to accelerate AI adoption across military and intelligence operations.
On Capitol Hill, Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) and Lori Trahan (D-MA), along with four bipartisan co-sponsors, released a 269-page discussion draft of the Great American Artificial Intelligence Act. The proposal would preempt certain state laws governing AI model development for three years, require leading frontier developers to publish catastrophic risk preparedness plans, and mandate safety incident reporting to both federal and state regulators. The draft has yet to gain traction among House Democrats, many of whom are deferring consideration of comprehensive AI regulation until the next Congress.
Meanwhile, in a notable convergence of ideas at different ends of the political spectrum, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) floated the creation of an American AI sovereign wealth fund to provide the public with an ownership stake in major U.S. AI firms. President Trump also indicated he may meet with AI executives this week to discuss a proposal that would require AI companies to distribute dividends to Americans.
Read more below
Congress
Hearings
Last week
On June 3, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade held a hearing on “Examining Legislation to Establish a Federal Comprehensive Privacy and Data Security Law.”
On June 3, the House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development held the seventh hearing in a series on artificial intelligence, entitled “Building an AI-Ready America: Higher Education in the Age of AI.”
On June 3, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade held a hearing on “Examining Legislation to Establish a Federal Comprehensive Privacy and Data Security Law.”
On June 4, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet held a hearing on “Medicines and IP: Balancing Innovation and Access.”
On June 4, the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection held a hearing on “The AI Security Landscape: How Frontier Models, Agentic AI, and AI Coding Tools Are Reshaping Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Resilience.”
This week
On June 11, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee holds a hearing on “AI and the American Dream: Promoting Innovation, Affordability, and American Dominance.”
Upcoming
On June 23, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled “Examining Tech Industry Practices and the Implications for Users and Families: Is This Social Media’s Big Tobacco Moment?” to consider issues including AI safety.
On June 25, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets holds a hearing on “From Wall Street to Main Street: The Future of How America Invests.”
Legislation
Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) and Lori Trahan (D-MA) released a discussion draft of the Great American AI Act to create a federal framework for how the United States governs artificial intelligence. The draft is supported by Reps. Scott Franklin (R-FL), Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA), Erin Houchin (R-IN), and Scott Peters (D-CA). (Press release)(Text)
House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party John Moolenaar (R-MI) introduced the Biotech Investment National Security (BINSA) Act of 2026 expands the definition of prohibited and notifiable technology under the Defense Production Act to include biotechnology such as pharmaceutical development, biologics manufacturing, and clinical research capabilities. It specifically targets licensing, joint ventures, and equity investments that transfer intellectual property or know-how to Chinese entities. (Text)
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) introduced a two-bill package, the Ultimate Human Responsibility in Defense Systems Act and the Warfighter AI Readiness and Preparedness (WARP) Act, to make sure that as artificial intelligence is integrated in warfare the U.S. military preserves human judgement and accountability and protects the human skills that AI cannot replace. The Ultimate Human Responsibility in Defense Systems Act establishes statutory requirements to ensure autonomous weapon systems are developed, tested, and employed in a manner that preserves meaningful human judgment and accountability over the use of force. Similar legislation was introduced by Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) in the House. The WARP Act, introduced with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), directs the Department of Defense (DoD) to assess how increasing AI integration affects warfighter effectiveness, skill retention, and operational readiness. (Ultimate Human Responsibility in Defense Systems Act)(WARP Act)
Sens. Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Reps. Jennifer McClellan (D-VA) and Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) reintroduced the Curbing Online Non-consensual Sexually Explicit Nudity Transfers (CONSENT) Act to establish a private right of action against a person who transmits unsolicited intimate visual depictions. (Text)
Reps. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Select Committee on China Chair John Moolenaar (R-MI) introduced the Prohibiting Adversarial Patents to prohibit the issuance of a U.S. patent to any person or entity who is identified to be a threat to U.S. national security pursuant to the Non-SDN CMIC List, the 1260H List, or the FCC’s Section 2 List. Any patent previously issued to companies on these lists would be unenforceable. (Press release)
Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) introduced the Foreign Adversary Patent Disclosure Act to require patent applicants to disclose the identity of each person with an ownership interest in the claimed invention who, in the previous five years: was employed by an entity owned or controlled by a foreign adversary; received funding from a state-affiliated research fund or talent recruitment program associated with a foreign adversary; or received any other financial incentive from a foreign adversary. (Press release)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the Secure and Accountable Military AI Act to establish a comprehensive framework to govern the deployment, security, and operational use of AI by the U.S. Department of Defense, ensuring that human commanders remain in control of life-and-death decisions and banning AI’s use entirely in certain critical contexts. (Press release)
Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) introduced the Sectoral AI Governance Act to provide federal agencies a consistent framework for writing and issuing rules whenever the use of AI is likely to materially contribute to violations of existing federal laws. (Press release)
Reps. Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY), Beth Van Duyne (R-TX), and Valerie Foushee (D-NC) introduced the Creative Rights Ensuring Artists’ Technique and Originality Are Reserved (CREATOR) Act to safeguard visual artists from the unauthorized commercial exploitation of their unique and creative artistic styles in the age of artificial intelligence. (Text)
Sens. Dave McCormick (R-PA), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Todd Young (R-IN), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) introduced the National Commission on Robotics Act to establish an independent commission to evaluate America’s competitiveness in robotics and recommend policies to strengthen U.S. leadership in that field. (Text)
Correspondence
Sens. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), and Tim Kaine (D-VA) sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting an investigation into the use of AI in K-12 education. The letter directs GAO to investigate AI’s influence on student achievement, teacher professional development, and use in special education. (Letter)
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urging the Trump Administration to strengthen the cybersecurity resilience of the financial sector amidst the growing risks of artificial intelligence-enabled cyberattacks. (Letter)
House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY) and Reps. John Joyce (R-PA) and Bob Latta (R-OH) sent a letter to the Co-Chairs of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel requesting information about the evidence that strongly suggests there are foreign influence campaigns working to slow American AI progress and block the development of the infrastructure we need to power it. (Letter)
Chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force Mike Thompson (CA-04), Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC), and members of the task force sent a letter to OpenAI and Google DeepMind urging the companies to address the risks posed by online chatbots and requesting information on the steps they are taking to protect consumers and public safety. (Letter)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent a letter to NVIDIA Corporation’s Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary Tim Teter and Member of the Board of Directors and Chair of the Audit Committee Brooke Seawell, requesting answers about the company’s compliance with U.S. export control laws and regulations and the accuracy of its public statements regarding the diversion of advanced AI chips to China. (Letter)
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urging Treasury to better understand and develop rules surrounding agentic artificial intelligence usage across the financial services sector. (Letter)
Publications and Events
Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) and Lori Trahan (D-MA) published an op-ed in Bloomberg entitled “America Needs One National Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” saying “The question before Congress isn’t whether AI will be governed. It’s whether we will build a clear national framework that protects Americans, supports innovation, and ensures the US leads the world in shaping this technology. That is why, as a Republican and a Democrat, we’re releasing a bipartisan discussion draft of the Great American Artificial Intelligence Act. Policy for a technology this transformative can only be built to last if it’s written by both parties.” (Op-ed)
Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) published an op-ed in the Commonwealth Beacon entitled “Congress must act now on AI.” She says, “After Mythos, I went to work trying to change that. I entered negotiations with my Republican colleague on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman Jay Obernolte of California, to build a bipartisan federal AI framework. Those talks have been hard and remain unfinished, but they have made something clear: The basic architecture of serious AI governance is within reach. There is more bipartisan agreement on the fundamentals than people might expect. Here is where that consensus lives. First, real accountability at the frontier… Second, independent verification of safety practices… Third, protect American workers… Finally, shore up our cyber defenses.” (Op-ed)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) published an op-ed in the New York Times titled “A.I. Is a Public Resource. You Should Own Half of It.” He argues, “I will soon be introducing the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. This legislation would give the public a direct ownership stake in the largest A.I. companies in our country. How? It would create a sovereign wealth fund through a one-time 50 percent tax — not on the profits of OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI and other companies, but paid with something far more valuable than that: the stock. If passed, this legislation would do two crucial things. First, it would give the public a direct role in determining the future of this technology. No longer would the future of A.I. and the transformation of human life that it will bring be dictated by a handful of Big Tech oligarchs. The federal government would have the power, through its voting shares and an equal representation on each company’s board, to block decisions that hurt our citizens and to push for policies that help them. Second, this legislation would guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by A.I. are used to improve the lives of all of us — not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer. If the big A.I. companies continue to grow as rapidly as many analysts expect, then the value of the sovereign wealth fund will grow as well — and the benefits to the American people will grow along with it.” (Op-ed)
Trump Administration
White House
President Trump signed an Executive Order on “Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security” directing federal agencies to use AI to strengthen cybersecurity, set up a voluntary process for frontier AI companies to share models with the government before release, and crack down on AI-enabled cybercrime. It does not create mandatory licensing or pre-clearance for AI models. (EO)
President Trump signed “National Security Presidential Memorandum NSPM‑11: Artificial Intelligence in the National Security Enterprise,” which directs the U.S. national security enterprise to accelerate AI adoption across military and intelligence operations. NSPM-11 organizes the Administration’s national security AI policy around four pillars, which the memorandum calls Adoption, Adaptation, Assurance, and Accountability. The NSPM rescinds and replaces the Biden Administration’s NSM‑25, which the White House says fostered single‑vendor dependencies and bureaucratic delays. (Memo)(Fact Sheet)
On June 9, the White House hosts the Presidential Artificial Intelligence Challenge National Champion Awards Ceremony.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
The FTC sent to the Office of Intergovernmental Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) a Policy Statement Concerning the Suppression of Accuracy in Artificial Intelligence Systems. (Notice)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
The USPTO announced the launch of the Standards Participation and Representation Kudos (SPARK) Pilot Program to incentivize participation in standards development organizations (SDOs) by U.S. small and medium-sized businesses, universities, and non-profit organizations. Under the pilot program, examination of certain patent applications and ex parte appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may be expedited if the U.S.-domiciled juristic applicant meaningfully participated in a voluntary consensus-based SDO and meets the requirements specified in this notice. (Notice)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
On June 16-17, NIST holds a meeting of the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology to review and discuss its policies within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and Congress.
Noteworthy Quotes
ADMINISTRATION
White House
President Donald Trump could meet with AI company executives at the White House this week to discuss a potential “partnership” between the government and AI companies which would require the company to send dividends to Americans. Trump said, “There’s a concept out there, there’s so much money and it’s so big that there are concepts where pieces could be given to the American public, where the American public essentially becomes a partner with the companies. I have spoken to all of them. We’re talking about it where the American people can benefit from the success of AI. And by doing that, they’re going to like it better.” (Politico)
On the similarities between Trump’s proposal and an AI profit-sharing plan from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Trump said, “As far as economics is concerned, we have certain things that aren’t that far apart. People are surprised.” (Politico)
White House adviser David Sacks opposed the proposal, saying it is “the corporate-government fusion we’re already sliding toward.” (Politico)
Sacks posted “While I’m no fan of socialism or arbitrary confiscations of wealth, I can see why Bernie Sanders’ proposal (for the government to take a 50% stake in AI companies) resonates, including with many on the right. The CEOs of the leading AI labs have told us repeatedly that they will cause massive job loss. This is not a story that I believe, nor does the data bear it out, but this is what they have told us. Similarly, they have hyped the risks of AI without putting an equal or greater emphasis on the benefits or readily available mitigations. Conservatives have another fear. The employees of the leading labs claim to be philanthropic, but what we’ve seen is massive enrichment of NGOs advancing an agenda at odds with traditional values, fueling a revolution against our cities and communities. Soros-maxxing is not charity in our book. Anthropic and OpenAI have established themselves as Public Benefit Corporations. What could be more in the public benefit than using half the wealth generated by these companies (which trained for free on the collective knowledge of humanity) to pay down the national debt? There is no ideological bias in that philanthropy. Dario and Sam have begun to walk back their claims of massive job loss, but the damage to public trust is done, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. I could almost support the Sanders proposal as a stupidity tax. There’s just one problem. Nationalization of AI will accelerate the corporate-government fusion we’re already sliding toward. Conservatives rightly fear a Central Bank Digital Currency. They ought to be even more concerned about Central Government AI — a system with even more totalistic power over information, decision-making, and human behavior. We saw how social media was weaponized to censor conservatives (including President Trump) in the last Democrat administration. The definition of “trust & safety” expanded to mean protecting the public from supposed psychological harms, micro-aggressions, and disinformation (you know, like hearing conservative ideas or true facts about Covid). That “safety” agenda as applied to AI will be vastly more powerful and Orwellian. AI won’t just moderate posts; it will curate reality — with the ability to rewrite history, enforce ideological conformity, influence policy at scale, mass surveil Americans, and condition the benefits of the many systems it controls on approved behavior. America won’t win the AI race if we beat China but end up with a CCP-style social credit system in the U.S. — and that is the danger as the government becomes more deeply involved in AI development and assumes direct ownership and control. Conservatives are right to fear where this is all headed but ought to think more carefully about how regulations they are flirting with now (that are widely celebrated among those with a long history of lust for Big Government) will be used against them the next time a Democrat administration is in power.”
Sacks also posted “As with Climate Change, the AI Doom narrative will be embraced by all cuckservatives.”
Sacks also posted “Signs you might be trying to get your frontier AI lab nationalized: You compare it to nukes… threaten half of white-collar jobs… warn recursive self-improvement could end humanity… then race ahead anyway. In other words, you want the government to save us from… you.”
Sacks also posted “Many have reached out to me regarding the new Cyber EO. A few thoughts: First, President Trump is the most pro-innovation president we’ve ever had. He’s made it clear that the U.S. has to win the AI race and that a pro-innovation, pro-energy, and pro-infrastructure policy is the way to do that. Thanks to President Trump, AI will generate over a 2% tailwind to GDP growth this year, with hundreds of thousands of new construction jobs and 25-30% wage increases for blue collar workers. President Trump is the reason that we have an AI boom happening right now. The change in the EO from a 90 day to 30 day period is a game changer because it allows our AI labs to comply with the voluntary framework without delaying new model releases. They can synchronize their efforts under the EO with other pre-release activities. Furthermore, I’ve been advised by the lawyers who draft EOs that 30 days means calendar days, not business days. In the AI race, every day counts. As OSTP well notes, “The EO creates a process for frontier labs to voluntarily share cutting-edge cyber models in order to secure critical infrastructure and strengthen the government’s own cyber defenses. We are NOT conducting oversight of all new models, as that level of government overreach would have chilling effects on free speech and innovation.” OSTP’s characterization is completely consistent with the discussions that I have participated in, where it was agreed that the EO is intended to apply only to models that represent a meaningful step-change in cyber capabilities (eg Mythos), not to incremental version numbers of existing models (eg Opus 4.7 -> 4.8). Finally, I understand the concerns of many that this could morph into an ‘FDA for AI’. Of course bureaucratic mission creep is always a danger and this should be closely monitored. But the EO expressly forbids the creation of a new licensing, preclearance, or permitting regime. Most importantly, I do not believe that President Trump would allow this to happen. As AI presents new policy challenges (such as cyberweapons), I believe that everyone in the administration is working diligently to navigate the issues with the American people in mind. I look forward to working with the Treasury, NSA, ONCD and others on the implementation of this framework.”
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
On Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s lead role in maintaining an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, rather than the DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said, “CISA interacts with just about every other agency out there, and when we started looking at the biggest threats that AI is used for, it is through financial gain. Scott Bessent and I talk all the time; he is very capable. We are very comfortable with what’s happening there with him leading in this area, because we’re partnering with CISA and our tools with the unique authority we have, and then he has separate authority. So we’re, because of the coordination, I think we’re better prepared than just leaving it within DHS.” (FedScoop)
Treasury Department
In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, Secretary Scott Bessent said, “I’ve been in contact with all of the large language model labs. I was in San Francisco on Saturday meeting with them. We have convened at Treasury the largest banks, and they are working diligently on their standards. I think the rest of the industry can learn from them.” (Politico)
Bessent added, “The executive order yesterday I think strikes a very good balance between innovation and safety.” (Politico)
Federal Reserve
Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman testified before the House Financial Services Committee, saying, “The financial system continues to adapt to technological advances, including the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities and the risks and benefits of its use. Recent advances in frontier AI models have dramatically accelerated the identification of cyber vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure, including the banking system. While this enhanced detection capability offers opportunities to strengthen cybersecurity defenses, it also identifies new vulnerabilities to potential cyberattacks. The Federal Reserve is committed to supporting government-wide efforts to enhance cybersecurity and working with banks as they navigate this complex threat environment. Effectively managing these emerging cyber risks will require ongoing collaboration between public and private entities, continuous monitoring of AI developments, regular stakeholder communications, and agile regulatory and supervisory frameworks that keep pace with rapid technological change.” (Remarks)
CONGRESS
Obernolte-Trahan Great American Artificial Intelligence Act
The House Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy Co-Chairs Reps. Ted Lieu (D-CA), Valerie Foushee (D-NC), and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) released a statement saying, “While we appreciate the bipartisan effort from Representatives Jay Obernolte and Lori Trahan, their proposed discussion draft on AI does not meet the enormity of the moment. We do not support the discussion draft as it currently stands. The House Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy has spent months working closely with our colleagues and key stakeholders from civil society organizations, industry, labor, academia, and others addressing AI issues. Many of those same organizations share our view that this document cannot serve as the basis for productive dialogue. We look forward to continuing this discussion and developing thoughtful AI policies that protect the American people and drive American innovation.” (Press release)
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) posted “Congress needs to do the work of developing AI policy that supports innovation and protects people. But I have concerns that the Obernolte/Trahan draft goes too far in preempting states from responding to fast-moving AI harms. We should not take away states’ ability to protect consumers, workers, children, and communities, especially without clear, meaningful federal protections. Any federal AI bill must be targeted and strong enough to meet the moment—not so sweeping that it blocks responsible state action before Congress has put real safeguards in place.”
Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) said, “It’s only going to be with everyone pushing in the same direction that we have a chance of getting us across the finish line.” (Punchbowl)
Obernolte also said, “We were pretty explicit in the preemption language that we are applying the preemption only to the regulation of development of AI, not the regulation of deployment of AI.” (Punchbowl)
On meeting with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman about the AI bill, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said, “He comes in on occasion to provide updates, and we’re going to talk about AI and the regulatory framework.” (Politico)
On the bill, Johnson said, “We’re trying to finalize it, because everybody understands it’s an important issue.” (Politico)
On preemption, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) said, “There’s still some states with very severe limits on innovation, and that’s that’s a harmful thing for technology in general to limit innovation, and so the only way you can address that is through law.” (Politico)
AI Executive Order
On Treasury’s lead role in maintaining an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, rather than the DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) said, “CISA still has to be the lead. Treasury does have a role because of the financial sector, but all those sectors have to refer to one organization and we put that into DHS.” (Punchbowl)
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) released a statement saying, “Once again, the Trump administration has belatedly discovered the need to redo something it hastily dismantled in its first year. While this course correction – a rehash of proposals contained in the last administration’s 2023 executive order, bipartisan congressional legislation, and each of the last three years of intel authorization bills the Senate Intel Committee has passed – can begin to grapple with widespread impacts that new frontier models will have on our critical infrastructure, it can’t undo the years wasted on dismantling some of the most vital pillars of our nation’s cybersecurity response, including key information sharing initiatives and the federal agency established to protect the security of U.S. critical infrastructure. I salute the proposal for pre-deployment testing on a collaborative basis – just as I did when that idea was first advanced in the last administration’s EO, which was rescinded on Trump’s first day. I am strongly supportive of the effort to have NSA lead efforts to evaluate national security implications of frontier models in voluntary partnerships with frontier vendors – which is why we’ve included a provision directing NSA to do that in each of the last three years’ Intelligence Authorization bills my Committee has passed – which had been rebuffed by Trump allies in 2024 and 2025. Similarly, I’m heartened the president has learned the value of robust information sharing when new software vulnerabilities are discovered – and have been championing this kind of effort in bipartisan bills with Sen. Lankford and Sen. Tillis that would have gotten ahead of these problems years ago. While I hope that this new EO represents a dramatic change of course, I will also be watchful for indications the administration has reverted to his prior, ideological approach – for instance, by using these new pre-deployment partnerships as vectors to pressure U.S. firms into making changes to their products or Terms of Service to suit partisan or legally questionable objectives of the president and his allies.” (Press release)
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) released a statement saying, “While today’s White House Executive Order represents a step in the right direction toward protecting America from national security risks, its purely voluntary nature lacks real teeth. Powerful AI frontier models that exhibit dangerous capabilities, including cybersecurity risks and the potential to create novel bioweapons, must be shared with the government and relevant critical infrastructure entities before they are released to the public. While this process can’t be bureaucratic, it shouldn’t be optional. A purely voluntary framework means allowing AI to remain the Wild West. After Anthropic’s Mythos announcement, we saw that good actors will proactively and expeditiously collaborate with the government to ensure that vulnerable organizations are safe from catastrophic cyber risk. But, we cannot trust that that will always be the norm. There are bad actors out there. AI is too important — and the stakes of inadequate guardrails too grave — to settle for anything less than comprehensive action. We can beat China, while protecting Americans and our critical infrastructure from serious risks. I’m working with my colleagues to develop commonsense policies and legislation in Congress to protect Americans, address national security risks, and boost American AI innovation.” (Press release)
Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), co-Chair of the bipartisan Congressional Artificial Intelligence Caucus, issued a statement saying, “The risks posed by frontier AI models and their advanced cyber capabilities are real and demand serious attention, but this executive order falls short of providing a credible framework to manage those risks. As it is written, this order continues to allow companies to release powerful models to the public without undergoing meaningful evaluation or review. This largely voluntary and classified approach is simply not sufficient. Equally concerning is absence of clear guidance on how identified threats would be addressed. While this order creates channels to surface potential risks, it fails to define procedures for responding to them once identified. It also opens the door to redirecting existing federal grant funding toward AI vulnerability efforts without clear safeguards or accountability. This is underwhelming policy that mirrors the Trump Administration’s broader pattern of creating a wild west environment for AI development, rather than ensuring safe and responsible governance to protect the American public.” (Press release)
Public Ownership of AI Companies
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) posted “I will soon be introducing a bill to give the public a 50% ownership stake in the largest AI companies in America. This would guarantee that the trillions created by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us — and block oligarch decisions that harm the American people.”
On Sanders’ proposal, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) said, “Sanders would like to put AI in a box and lock it up and make it go away. That’s not reality.” (Punchbowl)
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said, “A sovereign wealth fund is not necessarily a bad idea” but not “the government owning AI.” (Punchbowl)
Miscellaneous
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) delivered remarks at American Compass New World Gala, saying, “And let me say a word now to my own party, because the Republican Party has a choice of its own to make—perhaps the defining choice of its next half century. We can be the party of the boardroom: the party of the donor and the share price, the party that measures a man by his market value and a policy by what it does to a stock. Or we can be the party of the covenant: the party of the good, the just, and the right; the party of the worker and the family and the small town; the party that remembers our commitment to justice for all, to the sanctity of the individual, to the dignity of labor, to the priority of the poor.” (Press release)
In remarks at the House Financial Services hearing on oversight of prudential regulators, Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) said, “America’s banks and credit unions are operating during a time of unprecedented change in the financial system. Consumers and markets are moving faster than ever, with improved access to information, 24-hour banking, and the reduced friction of modern payment systems, and soon personal agentic AI financial agents, fintech partnerships promote innovation and competition, but come with unique risks. Banks and credit unions are also facing a wave of fraud driven by artificial intelligence and deep fakes, while bad actors continue to exploit older banking tools, such as paper checks, for illicit purposes. Our prudential regulatory agencies must be agile and well resourced to respond to these risks. Preparing for liquidity risks of internet-driven bank runs and cyber threats from emerging AI tools should be a top priority, and our regulatory bodies need to maintain the necessary technology and human resources to do so effectively. This administration’s move to cut supervision and staff across the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC is a step in the wrong direction.”
Select Committee on the CCP Chair John Moolenaar (R-MI) issued a statement on the Trump Administration’s decision to block the sale of export-controlled chips to Chinese companies located outside of mainland China, “Winning the AI race against China requires commonsense export controls that are strictly enforced. The Trump Administration is right to close this loophole—a Chinese company anywhere in the world is subject to the CCP’s national security laws, and it should never be able to get ahold of advanced chips that its parent company in China is legally prohibited from buying. My SCALE Act complements this action by creating a clear export control standard to help secure America’s technology edge in line with President Trump’s AI Action Plan.” (Press release)
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Andy Kim (D-NJ) released a statement on the AI chip loophole, saying “On Sunday afternoon, the Trump Administration revealed that its failure to update export control regulations over the last year and a half may have inadvertently allowed America’s most advanced AI chips to flow to companies headquartered in China, potentially fueling China’s military capabilities. The Commerce Department could close the loophole today by issuing clear and comprehensive guidance, instead of standing by as U.S. technology flows to the Chinese military. Secretary Howard Lutnick should testify before the Senate Banking Committee about how his reckless mismanagement of the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security is putting our national security at risk.” (Press release)
Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) said of her Sectoral AI Governance Act, “Federal agencies are not always equipped to be able to enforce those laws when an algorithm is the one making those decisions instead of a human.” (Politico)
Jacobs also said, “We need to start working on what [Democrats] are going to be able to pass and do when we are in the majority, and this I think is one of the main pillars of that.” (Politico)
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) posted “As AI is used more by our military, we’ve got to keep people in control during life and death decisions. Service-members need to be the ones at the center, even during dynamic and complex operations. I introduced two bills today to make sure we get this right.”
Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-MD) posted “I’ve made it my career to hold Big Tech accountable. In Congress, I’m fighting for legislation that puts responsible guardrails in the new AI economy and ensures companies are held accountable when consumers are harmed. This bill isn’t the answer; we need stronger protections for states, consumers and families, not loopholes that let them operate unchecked.”
Energy and Commerce Committee posted “The SECURE Data Act is a milestone for American privacy rights. It would: Establish clear expectations for businesses to protect the privacy of users, Guarantee consumers enforceable privacy rights, Require user consent before processing sensitive data. This is the strong, clear national standard Americans have been waiting for. Thank you to CTATech, BizRoundtable, DAAUSA, and the over 60 business associations for their support in ensuring the passage of this legislation.”
What I’m Reading This Week
Democratic Governance of Frontier AI: A Blueprint for a Federal Framework, OpenAI.
Why AI’s Transition Period May Disrupt Tax, Tony Santiago, Tax Notes.
Illinois Legislature passes historic AI bill that would require third-party safety audits, NBC News.
About Zero One Strategies
Zero One Strategies is a specialized government relations practice dedicated to navigating the complex landscape of U.S. federal policy in emerging technologies. As advancements in technology continue to outpace regulatory frameworks, Zero One Strategies aims to provide strategic guidance and bipartisan advocacy for innovators and businesses operating at the forefront of technological development.
The practice focuses on key areas such as artificial intelligence, digital assets, blockchain, decentralized technologies, cybersecurity, data, and digital infrastructure, as well as the multiple policy issues impacting these sectors, including tax and financial services.
Contact us at Stacey@ZeroOneStrategies.com
Check out our other newsletter, DC Decentralized: A weekly newsletter on developments in digital asset and blockchain federal policy
