AI regulation faces political deadlock as calls grow for Congress to act

**AI regulation stalls amid political gridlock as pressure mounts on Congress**

When President Donald Trump answered growing demands on Monday for a slowdown in artificial intelligence (AI) development, he was blunt.

"AI taking over the World, destroying Humanity, and all other things bad, is a HOAX," he wrote on social media. He had earlier said that "the only control or 'guardrails' that AI needs" is a "strong and smart" president.

Trump’s position is, unsurprisingly, not the one held by senior Democrats in Congress. It is also rejected by prominent voices in the AI industry, who in recent days have issued severe warnings about safety and argued for government regulation.

In the US, though, new AI safety legislation is not likely any time soon.

Any bill would need approval in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to become law. Trump’s firm opposition to new AI guardrails means the Republican Party, which controls both chambers, is unlikely to break with him and support restrictions or government oversight.

And even if Republicans did, any bill passed would probably still need the president’s signature to take effect. Trump’s dismissal on Monday of the need for regulation effectively put executive action on hold.

On top of that, the most immediate barrier to progress in Congress is time.

The House is scheduled to go into recess at the end of the week until after the midterm elections in early November. Some senior Democrats want that recess postponed until AI safeguards are approved in the chamber.

"Congress should not leave town until something is done decisively to protect the safety and the wellbeing of the American people," Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters on Monday.

A group of House Democrats urging Congress to allow more time for debate on the issue has also sent a letter to Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, who would ultimately decide whether to delay the recess.

"Reasonable minds may disagree about precisely how Congress should regulate this rapidly evolving technology," the group said. "We cannot disagree about the imperative for Congress to act."

Over the weekend, Republican congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna suggested on X that "Congress SHOULD convene a special session" on the matter.

Still, it is very unlikely the recess will be pushed back or that a special session will be called in the next few days. Johnson, who on Monday was pressed repeatedly by reporters in the halls of Congress about AI, gave no indication that he planned to act quickly this week.

Asked whether the House would move on AI concerns before leaving for the midterms, he said: "This is a very complex issue."

He said Trump would soon host a White House meeting with AI executives to discuss "the responsibility of the companies to maintain safety and what role, if any, the government has to play in that".

"We want to emphasise the necessity of [AI companies] providing safe products and self-regulating," Johnson said, before adding: "There is also a role potentially for Congress to play."

What that role might be remains unclear — and is disputed among lawmakers.

Although Democrats are pushing for more time to deal with AI safety, they are also split over the best way to regulate AI.

Even if the party won control of both chambers of Congress in November’s elections, swift action would not be guaranteed, since it would still need to unite behind a single proposal.

And there are already many legislative proposals on Capitol Hill aimed at AI safety, ranging from independent reviews to a federal "kill switch" to a total moratorium on data centres proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders.

These competing ideas highlight both the lack of agreement in Congress and the urgency some lawmakers feel to act.

Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar are working on a bill that would require some AI companies to submit to federal oversight.

"You don't want to stifle innovation," Thune said on Monday, "but I think you also want to make sure that the more advanced threats can be mitigated."

Meanwhile, Democratic congresswoman Lori Trahan has spent months developing a separate bipartisan House proposal that would give the government authority to stop the use of an AI model if officials determine there is an "imminent catastrophic risk".

"The federal government needs to put guardrails in place," she told the BBC, warning that the technology would eventually affect every part of society. "I don't think we have any more time to wait. This is all hands on deck."

Trahan has worked on her bill, the Frontier Act, with Republican Jay Obernolte and, among other things, it would require independent audits of AI research labs.

But Trahan acknowledged that any progress this week was unlikely.

Some leading Republicans, including Speaker Johnson, have frequently used the term "self-regulation" when talking about government involvement and have urged companies to take responsibility for AI safety.

One of Trump’s top AI advisers, David Sacks, told the BBC’s US partner CBS News on Monday that some of the existential warnings from insiders had been exaggerated. "I think this is becoming a panic," he said.

"First and foremost, it is on them to make their products safe," Sacks said. "They should tell us how they should do that. If they can't do that, they should step aside for people who can do that."

"Why are you acting like this is something that you can't control?" he said, referring to Anthropic boss Dario Amodei, who has called for a slowdown in development. "If you can't control it, then don't do it."

Some experts agree that, at least in the short term, AI companies themselves should regulate responsibly.

"You might want an act of Congress, and I would love a congressionally mandated regime that requires safety and testing and bias testing," said Asad Ramzanali, director of AI & Technology Policy at Vanderbilt University.

"But absent that action, the companies have autonomy."

Others have been doubtful about the recent wave of warnings from AI staffers.

Trevor Traina, a tech executive who served as a diplomat during Trump’s first term, said: "I don't think the typical citizen has encountered anything scary or really problematic with AI."

"We're relying on the tweets of a half-dozen people who are all vying for perceived supremacy," he said. "The cynic in me thinks, 'Are they are really concerned, or are they trying to prove which model is the most awesome?'"

Alexandra Reeve Givens, who previously worked in government and now heads the US non-profit the Center for Democracy and Technology, said she did not believe meaningful federal AI regulation would pass in the foreseeable future.

Although the Trump administration has created a fully voluntary system for AI companies to submit their models and tools for government review, Givens said the framework itself is still secret.

"There's no clear standard to make sure that the approach is even grounded in the rule of law," she said.

Calls from different groups to make the framework public have so far been ignored.

The White House approach, together with a lack of political will and agreement, makes AI legislation hard to pass.

"There is no question that federal legislation is challenging in this climate, but Congress also has to grapple with which of the many types of AI risk need to be addressed," Givens said.

"It's not that AI is ungovernable, it's that each risk needs a tailored approach."