Artificial intelligence is upending the internet, warfare, science and the economy. It is also disrupting power in Washington by providing a pathway to relevance for politicians willing to grapple with it.
Ask lawmakers on Capitol Hill who work on AI policy why they’re doing it, and they’ll tell you it’s one of the most pressing issues of our time. Observers point out it’s also politically astute of them to embrace the issue: It’s a fast track to higher name recognition, credibility within their party and the groundwork for a platform to run on.
“Whenever there’s a developing policy or technology that’s also in the news a lot, you always have a lot of ambitious politicians who love to go running towards the light,” said Eddie Vale, a Democratic political consultant.
“It is definitely growing exponentially, both in terms of like groups and also politicians trying to get involved,” Vale told NOTUS. “When AI first came out, people were thinking about it more as a tech policy issue, but as people learned more about it, they realized it is starting to impact almost every policy area.”
Trending
In practice, that means members of Congress across the political spectrum have introduced hundreds of bills aimed at shaping how AI is developed and used. While few AI-related bills have passed, AI regulation is becoming a prized policy space which can be leveraged for political power.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, argued AI policy is going to be “a decisive issue” in the 2028 presidential election and beyond. Casar isn’t considered a possible 2028 candidate, but he has recently introduced bills to protect children using AI chatbots and stop AI-powered algorithmic pricing. He’s also proposed taxing large companies’ AI use.
“Democrats have this huge opportunity to be on the side of everyday people and leave JD Vance and the Republicans on the side of scumbags like David Sacks and Elon Musk,” Casar told NOTUS.
But it’s not just Democrats whose careers could end up being hoisted by AI.
Three-term Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-California) has long been the point person in the House Republican Conference for AI policy. He co-led a bipartisan AI working group that established the largest bipartisan AI regulatory framework in Congress. Earlier this year, he became the conference policy chair.
When NOTUS asked Obernolte, who was previously a computer scientist and game developer in California, if AI has boosted his career in Congress, he said he hadn’t “really thought about it.”
“For most of us, this is not why we’re doing this. We’re doing this because we care deeply about this issue and we feel that federal action is desperately necessary,” Obernolte said. “We rely on silos of expertise ... on the issues having to do with technology policy, those of us that have a background in technology, I think, we have people that listen to us.”
That background may have helped land his spot in leadership, according to Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Oklahoma), who was policy chair before Obernolte and endorsed him for the role.
“He’s done a lot of work on many things, but he’s somebody who certainly understands AI,” Hern told NOTUS. “And that’s an area where we have quite a deficiency in Congress. Maybe even more so on the House side.”
“He’s somebody who is obviously educated on it. And I’ve always said I want people talking about important issues that have actually had experience on the outside, and he’s certainly the right person,” Hern added.
Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Massachusetts), who is planning to run for vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus in the next Congress, according to a source familiar with her thinking, recently joined forces with Obernolte to introduce an AI safety bill. The bill would allow the federal government to intervene in the deployment of AI models and create safety transparency requirements for AI companies. Her involvement drew criticism from some members of her party after the release of a discussion draft last month which included language that could limit state-level AI regulation, a policy that is toxic among many Democrats.
The lawmakers have reportedly continued to make changes to their proposal, but early on it managed to get support from some AI safety advocates and AI industry insiders, which could translate into credibility for her leadership bid.
“Taking on big problems and working across the aisle to solve them is what folks back home elected me to do,” Trahan told NOTUS in a statement. “Automation and offshoring took our jobs a generation ago ... Is this good politics? That’s not really how I think about this work. But sure, good politics is being responsive to the people you represent.”
“There’s earth-shattering AI news practically every week. It’s only going to get more frequent and more serious as these models get more powerful,” she added. “Every member of Congress knows next week will bring something else just as alarming, if not worse. We’re responding with the urgency this moment demands.”
The specifics of how AI will change the future remain uncertain, but for people jumping on AI regulation, the uncertainty in the space is part of the appeal.
“It’s just the next frontier of policymaking, you know? You can’t be here knowing that we’re in an era of technological advances and, you know, still on a rotary phone,” Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-New York) told NOTUS.
Candidates are also seeing the political opportunity around focusing on AI and staking their campaigns on it, with mixed results.
In June, New York State Assembly member Alex Bores lost his bid in a Democratic primary to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-New York) after making AI regulation a central part of his campaign; AI-backed super PACs spent millions of dollars in the race both for and against him. Abdul El-Sayed, who’s running to replace retiring Sen. Gary Peters (D-Michigan), released a populist AI policy agenda that includes public ownership of AI companies. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), who is running for governor in her state, has leaned heavily into AI regulation with a platform that would create protections for children using AI chatbots and safety standards for AI companies.
“AI, being arguably the most important technology of our time, both in the immediate future and long-term future, will continue to attract a lot of people. Many are trying to get in early at the ground floor,” Caleb Knapp, an AI safety lobbyist at the Alliance for Secure AI, told NOTUS.
“A lot of folks both anticipate and are expecting AI to become much more of a kitchen-table issue because of how it impacts culture and the economy and everything in between,” he said.
Other candidates who might be angling for a presidential to run in 2028 have also tried to shape the AI regulation debate.
Vice President JD Vance, who has long advocated for a relaxed AI regulatory state, has recently advocated for stronger restrictions on the technology. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) has made AI populism central to his politics, advocating for strict regulations that would bar kids from using AI chatbots and force safety-compliance measures for AI companies. And Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor of California who signed one of the first AI safety laws in the country, has said the U.S. government should own a stake in large AI companies.
Some members of Congress whose districts house tech companies, and therefore whose work on AI regulation began years ago, argue that the public is pressuring more candidates to weigh in on the issue.
“People are getting more and more questions by their constituents back home, so it’s understandable that they’re waking up to the issue,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat who represents parts of Silicon Valley, told NOTUS.
And others say they welcome the input of more members of Congress.
“It’s a good thing that more of my colleagues are rolling up their sleeves on this issue,” Rep. Sam Liccardo, another Silicon Valley Democrat, told NOTUS. “Ambition in this regard can be positive because for too long, too few of us have been delving into the details.”
Author
