No Specifics From White House on National AI Regulatory Framework
A leader of the White House’s artificial intelligence strategy recently addressed House lawmakers, providing scant details regarding the administration’s forthcoming legislative recommendations aimed at establishing a national standard to preempt state laws.
In December, President Donald Trump signed an executive order instructing federal agencies to challenge state AI laws deemed “onerous” and to restrict state access to certain federal funds—including funding related to broadband deployment—based on those regulations. This executive order was issued after earlier attempts by pro-AI lawmakers to legislate a national preemption of state AI laws encountered bipartisan resistance in support of state authority.
Tasking White House Officials
The executive order also designated White House Science and Technology Adviser Michael Kratsios and Special Adviser for AI and Crypto David Sacks to formulate legislative recommendations for a national AI standard that would supersede existing state laws. During Kratsios’s first testimony on Capitol Hill since the issuance of the order, he sidestepped specific details while addressing lawmakers’ concerns about the distribution of responsibility for AI regulation among states, Congress, and the Trump administration.
Kratsios highlighted the need for “regulatory clarity and certainty” to ensure that American innovators maintain their global leadership in the AI sector. He stated, “If American innovators are to continue to lead the world, they will need regulatory clarity and certainty, which the legislative and executive branches must work together to provide.”
Support for Federal Framework
Subcommittee Chair Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California, expressed general support for Congress to establish what he termed an “appropriate federal framework” that would reinforce the United States’ position as a leader in AI development and deployment. However, he emphasized the importance of state involvement in regulating AI. California has enacted laws requiring AI developers to disclose information about potential catastrophic risks associated with their models and the data used for training.
Obernolte stated, “I think what everyone believes is that there should be a federal lane, and that there should be a state lane,” advocating for a clear distinction in regulatory responsibilities. He pressed Kratsios on the potential “guardrails” and the administration’s vision for congressional action.
Concerns Over Executive Power
During the discussion, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California, raised concerns regarding the executive order’s implications for shifting power over AI from states and Congress to the executive branch. She argued that preempting state authority could undermine necessary actions to protect citizens, while Congress remains inactive in enacting its own legislation.
Lofgren acknowledged the administration’s AI Action Plan’s goals, particularly in terms of “innovation, infrastructure, international diplomacy, and security,” but critiqued it for only minimally addressing the risks associated with AI technologies.
Discussion on AI Misuse and Accountability
Concerns were also raised about the federal government’s relationship with Elon Musk’s X platform, formerly known as Twitter, particularly following incidents where the platform allowed the Grok AI chatbot to create inappropriate images of real individuals, including minors. In response, Kratsios asserted that misuse of technology demands accountability rather than “blanket restrictions on the use and development of that technology.”
Future Plans for AI Standards
Lawmakers from both parties questioned Kratsios regarding the administration’s plans for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and its Center for AI Standards and Innovation. Obernolte indicated intentions to introduce a bill titled the Great American AI Act to codify this center, while also praising the administration’s support for the continuation of the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource (NAIRR).
In conclusion, Kratsios celebrated the transition from the former AI Safety Institute to CAISI and mentioned that NIST would revise its AI Risk Management Framework, aiming to eliminate references to political issues like misinformation and climate change to maintain focus on scientific integrity.
