Come With Me if You Want to Regulate: Lawmakers Decide Whether to Take the Lead on ...

See All Insights Come With Me if You Want to Regulate: Lawmakers Decide Whether to Take the Lead on Reining in AI Brownstein Client Alert , Sept. 28, 2026 Print Over the past week, artificial intelligence (AI) has dominated the political conversation in Washington, driven by escalating warnings from some of the industry’s most prominent leaders about the catastrophic risks posed by rapidly advancing AI systems. Multiple chief executives of leading AI companies, including Sam Altman of OpenAI and Dario Amodei of Anthropic, have publicly called for slowing the pace of frontier AI development, citing concerns that range from near-term safety vulnerabilities to longer-horizon existential risks. These warnings have thrust AI policy to the forefront of the national debate and prompted a flurry of responses from political leaders across both parties. Against this backdrop, the key power centers in Washington have staked out sharply divergent positions on the urgency and scope of a congressional response. President Trump has dismissed AI safety concerns as a politically motivated “hoax” and has framed the debate almost exclusively around maintaining America’s competitive advantage over China. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has urged caution, placing primary responsibility on the private sector while resisting calls for emergency legislation. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has emerged as the most forward-leaning Republican voice, working with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on bipartisan safety legislation while advocating a “light touch” regulatory framework. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), by contrast, has issued the most urgent calls for immediate congressional action, criticizing Republican leadership for what he characterizes as a failure to meet the moment. This alert provides a detailed analysis of each leader’s position, examines the coalitions forming around AI policy in Washington, and assesses the prospects for legislative action before the end of the year. Presidential Rhetoric President Donald Trump has adopted one of the more aggressive postures against AI regulation of any lawmakers in the current debate. His core position rests on two pillars: categorical opposition to regulating AI and an overriding emphasis on strategic competition with China. When asked whether he worries that AI could lead to human extinction, the president was unequivocal, responding, “No, I don’t have any,” and pivoting immediately to the competitive framing, asserting that the United States currently leads China by “about a year” and would be “in a very bad position” if it fell behind. In subsequent remarks, Trump characterized recent proposals for AI regulation as misguided and, according to one report, labeled them part of a conspiracy against technology and data centers. During a Sept. 13 interview with CBS News, the president reiterated his resistance to calls for an AI slowdown, again invoking Chinese competition as the central concern. The president’s rhetoric intensified on Monday, Sept. 14, when he posted a series of statements about AI on Truth Social, his most extended public commentary on the subject to date. In a morning post, Trump declared that “the only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT,” claimed that the administration had already stopped Anthropic “from doing bad, or potentially bad, ‘things,’” and referred to CEO Dario Amodei as “now pretending to be a ‘perfect little angel.’” He asserted that the government already possesses “tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power over these companies” and warned of what he called a “SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers.” In subsequent posts throughout the day, the president further escalated his rhetoric. He characterized AI safety concerns as comparable to what he termed prior political hoaxes, declaring: “AI taking over the World, destroying Humanity, and all other things bad, is a HOAX, no different from RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA—UKRAINE, UKRAINE, UKRAINE—IMPEACHMENT HOAX #1—IMPEACHMENT HOAX #2.” Trump noted approvingly that China’s President Xi had “just announced that China will be doing absolutely nothing to stand in the way of AI.” He characterized AI and data centers as “the Greatest Economic Development Engine in History—Bigger than Oil, Gold, Diamonds, or even the Internet.” In his final posts of the day, the president called himself “the Hoax Buster” and compared AI safety concerns to what he described as the “Global Warming Scam.” President Trump also spoke at the U.N. General Assembly this week on AI, stating that he is changing the term to “super intelligence” and that “From this point forward, all of United States documents and hopefully the world’s, will be changed to use the much more accurate term super, as opposed to artificial.” President Trump largely dismissed concerns around AI during his speech, indicating that “we have to be careful” but that the United States is “going to encourage it, not rein it in.” He added, “I’m not going to stifle growth of something that will be bigger than the industrial revolution.” Following the U.N. General Assembly, President Trump hosted President Xi of China, where the leaders discussed, among many topics, AI. Prior to their meeting, President Trump posted on social media that “Super Intelligence (SI) will be a big topic of discussion, but I want to leave it exactly where it is. That is China’s position also. Our guardrail is the DOJ.” In an address at the beginning of his visit, President Xi stated that “We have both the capability and responsibility to develop and manage AI for good and ensure that the development of AI is always under human control and serves the well-being of the people.” In subsequent meetings, press reports indicated that China supports continued dialogue between the two countries to exchange views on AI’s risks and benefits. Additionally, President Xi said that human control over AI must be maintained and that China and the United States should leverage their respective strengths in AI instead of guarding against each other. Underscoring the strategic importance of U.S. technology leadership, business leaders including Jensen Huang, Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Tim Cook, Satya Nadella and Sundar Pichai were invited to the state dinner. Reports also emerged this week that President Trump will be selecting a new AI czar, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emerging as a front-runner for the position. Bessent spoke earlier this week on President Trump’s decision to select a new AI czar, stating “When President Trump talked about appointing an AI czar, I think it is to put context, shape and contours around these questions, and they’re very important.” Other names in the mix include Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Director Michael Kratsios and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Scott Kupor. It is unclear when President Trump will announce who he has selected for the position, but Secretary Bessent’s role at the Treasury Department won’t stand in the way of any designation as AI czar. Congressional Leadership Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). Speaker Johnson has positioned himself as a voice of caution, urging restraint in the face of calls for rapid legislative action while placing primary responsibility for AI safety on the private sector. Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Jake Tapper over the weekend of Sept. 13‒14, Johnson flatly rejected calls for an emergency congressional moratorium on AI development, warning: “We cannot put a moratorium on this because China will overlap us. If Congress just races in and does some sort of emergency session to try to regulate AI, we will lose the race to China.” He argued that government regulation could “smother American innovation” and stated unequivocally that it is the industry’s own responsibility to ensure the safety of its products. At the same time, Johnson acknowledged the need for some form of guardrails, posting on X that “we all have a sense of urgency to create guardrails around the technology,” but insisted that “the key is designing the guardrails carefully, in a way that prevents any harm from AI—while also preserving American innovation and our national security by keeping our edge over China.” Rather than pursuing immediate legislation, Johnson called for convening a meeting in Washington with AI platform providers and key experts “to determine the right course forward and discuss the responsibility providers have to ensure the safety of their products.” He indicated he would reconvene the House “if we had the solution” on AI but urged against panic, stating: “We don’t need everybody to panic right now. We need to handle this new technology like we have others in the past.” Notably, Johnson declined calls from House Democrats urging him to cancel the House recess and prioritize AI safeguards, reiterating his preference for industry consultation before any legislative action. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD). Out of the three Republican leaders, Thune has adopted the most forward-leaning posture on the need for congressional action on AI. On Monday, Sept. 14, Thune stated that any AI legislation must employ a “light touch” to avoid stifling innovation, while simultaneously acknowledging the “consequential risks” posed by the technology. Thune has been actively working with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on bipartisan AI safety legislation, and he reported speaking with Klobuchar on the evening of Saturday, Sept. 12, about the status and substance of their joint effort, with Republicans working to bring additional Democrats on board. Thune tempered some of the more alarming rhetoric that has characterized the broader debate, describing the prospect of AI exterminating humanity as a “worst-case scenario” while affirming that companies bear primary responsibility for frontier model safety. His position represents a notable departure from President Trump’s anti-regulatory stance: Thune told reporters on Monday that quick action on AI safety would be “challenging” but affirmed Congress’ prerogative to act. The Thune-Klobuchar effort currently represents the primary bipartisan channel through which AI safety legislation might advance in the Senate. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Jeffries has emerged as the most vocal advocate among the four leaders for immediate and aggressive legislative action on AI. In his Sept. 13 appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Jeffries called for Congress to “take decisive action now so that we can slow down the pace of development.” On Sept. 14, Politico reported that Jeffries had made “his most urgent call to date for guardrails on the rapidly advancing technology amid warnings it could eradicate humanity if left unchecked.” Jeffries announced that AI would be “a high priority” during the House Democrats’ weekly caucus meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 15, where the caucus discussed concrete action on AI. Beyond articulating the case for regulation, Jeffries has sharply criticized House Republicans for what he characterizes as their abandonment of responsibility on this issue. He took particular aim at GOP leadership for canceling the final two weeks of the House’s September session, arguing that lawmakers should remain in Washington to address AI before the November elections. Jeffries has called for “an aggressive framework” for regulation, positioning the Democratic caucus as unified in its demand for swift congressional action. Coalition Landscape The Republican Divide: Anti-Regulation vs. Light Touch. The Republican Party is visibly divided on AI policy, with two distinct camps emerging. The first, anchored by President Trump and Speaker Johnson, is largely opposed to new regulation. This faction frames the AI debate almost entirely through the lens of strategic competition with China, arguing that any regulatory burden, however well-intentioned, would slow American innovation, benefit foreign adversaries and ultimately undermine national security. The second Republican camp, led by Senate Majority Leader Thune, acknowledges the need for congressional action but insists on a measured, “light touch” approach that avoids stifling innovation. Thune’s willingness to work across the aisle with Sen. Klobuchar and to affirm Congress’ responsibility to act represents a significant departure from the White House’s position. The Democratic Caucus: Unified Behind Immediate Action. In contrast to the Republican divisions, the Democratic caucus is unified in calling for legislative action. Under House Minority Leader Jeffries, Democrats have pressed for “an aggressive framework” of AI regulation and have publicly criticized Republican leadership for failing to act. But beneath that surface unity lies a significant internal fault line, most visible on the question of data center construction. The progressive wing, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), has staked out the most aggressive position on data centers. Sanders introduced the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act (S. 4214) in March 2026, and Ocasio-Cortez introduced the House companion (H.R. 9442) in June 2026. The legislation would impose an immediate federal moratorium on new data center construction until laws are enacted subjecting AI products to prerelease federal safety review, protecting workers from AI-related job loss, and ensuring that data centers do not increase utility bills or harm the environment. Mainstream Democratic leaders, however, have not embraced the moratorium. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), the ranking member on the Senate Commerce Committee, dismissed calls for a moratorium and argued that advocates should instead push for renewable energy expansion. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), a co-chair of the House Democrats’ AI Commission along with Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Valerie Foushee (D-NC), have conversely focused on establishing a federal regulatory standard rather than imposing construction freezes. The divide reflects a broader tension within the party. Progressive advocacy groups have pushed Democrats to capitalize on voter unease about AI, pointing to Sanders’ moratorium and Rep. Greg Casar’s (D-TX) bill to combat algorithmic pricing as winning populist issues. Centrist and tech-aligned Democrats, however, fear that an overtly anti-technology posture risks alienating Silicon Valley donors and support. Democrats are also divided at the state level: at least two Democratic-controlled state legislatures have passed data center moratoria, but one was vetoed and the other awaits the governor’s signature. Despite these internal tensions, the caucus remains unified in its criticism of Republican inaction and in its demand for some form of federal AI oversight. The Bipartisan Bridge: The Thune-Klobuchar Effort. The most promising legislative vehicle for AI safety in the current Congress is the bipartisan collaboration between Sens. Thune and Klobuchar. This effort represents a deliberate attempt to bridge the partisan divide by pairing Thune’s “light touch” philosophy with Democratic concerns about safety and accountability. The Thune-Klobuchar framework appears designed to attract support from moderate members of both parties by avoiding the extremes of the debate. However, the success of this effort depends on Thune’s ability to navigate the tension between his legislative ambitions and the White House’s anti-regulatory posture, as well as on Klobuchar’s ability to bring along Democrats who may view a “light touch” approach as insufficient given the scale of the risks involved. The unique challenges of regulating AI are creating some unexpected political alliances. For example, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon emerged as unlikely allies in calling for greater safeguards around AI development. At a Washington event, both criticized AI leaders for moving too quickly and argued that stronger oversight is needed. Their preferred approaches, however, differ: Sanders favors congressional action, while Bannon has called for President Trump to act through executive authority. These are not the only cross-partisan pairings emerging around AI. In the Senate, Sens. John Curtis (R-UT) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) have become a prolific bipartisan duo on AI legislation, jointly introducing the SAFE KIDS Act to regulate AI chatbots’ interactions with children. In the House, Rep. Josh Gottheimer’s (D-NJ) collaboration with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) on the Stop Rogue AI Act follows the same cross-aisle pattern. These coalitions illustrate that concerns about the pace and risks of AI development do not always align neatly with traditional partisan divisions, and they suggest a growing willingness among members of both parties to distance themselves from the president’s categorical opposition to regulation. Brownstein’s Outlook Despite the proliferation of proposals, letters and public statements circulating on Capitol Hill, the fundamental lack of consensus among the principal coalitions in the AI policy debate makes it unlikely that any meaningful legislation will advance before the end of the year. The sharp divide between the White House’s categorical opposition to regulation, the Republican congressional leadership’s cautious preference for industry self-governance, Senate Majority Leader Thune’s measured but still emerging bipartisan approach, and the Democratic caucus’ urgent calls for immediate and aggressive action presents an alignment problem that no single bill or compromise framework has yet been able to bridge. Importantly, while it appears unlikely that anything will be done before the election, there seems to be bipartisan alignment on concerns about risks, remaining ahead of China and protecting children. Anything that gains bipartisan support in the near term is very likely to touch on one or more of those areas. Depending on the outcome of the election and whether AI and data centers are ultimately decisive issues for voters, we will see this debate evolve with the potential for increased unity around the path forward in the next Congress. THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING DEVELOPMENTS IN AI POLICY. THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT OR IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE AS TO AN ISSUE, PLEASE CONTACT THE ATTORNEYS LISTED OR YOUR REGULAR BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP ATTORNEY. THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE CONSIDERED ADVERTISING IN SOME JURISDICTIONS. Print TAGS: Government Relations Defense & National Security Technology & Telecommunications Contributors: Greta Joynes, Principal, Public Policy Brandt Anderson, Policy Director Tripp McKemey, Senior Policy Advisor Gabrielle Pearce, Policy Analyst & Law Clerk Recent Insights Read More Presentation | September 28, 2026 AG Housing Justice Team Presentation | September 28, 2026 Two Years After Sheetz: Fighting Impact Fees in the Courts Client Alert | September 28, 2026 Come With Me if You Want to Regulate: Lawmakers Decide Whether to Take the Lead on Reining in AI Presentation | September 24, 2026 The Most Important Clauses and Common Pitfalls in Commercial Leases and Purchase & Sale Agreements Client Alert | September 24, 2026 Updated Expectations for the Trump-Xi September Meeting Client Alert | September 23, 2026 2026 Gubernatorial Race Overview Read More You have chosen to send an email to Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck or one of its lawyers. The sending and receipt of this email and the information in it does not in itself create and attorney-client relationship between us. If you are not already a client, you should not provide us with information that you wish to have treated as privileged or confidential without first speaking to one of our lawyers. If you provide information before we confirm that you are a client and that we are willing and able to represent you, we may not be required to treat that information as privileged, confidential, or protected information, and we may be able to represent a party adverse to you and even to use the information you submit to us against you. I have read this and want to send an email.