Washington – Senators on both sides of the aisle rush to propose proposals for federal regulation of artificial intelligence, but most of the attention is on the president of trade in the Senate Ted Cruz, whose general plan is popular with Big Tech, but has not yet condemned the defenders of private life and consumers.
The Texas Republican proposed a legislative framework last month, calling for a “light touch” approach, although it has revealed only one bill, which would allow deployers of AI and developers to request long -term derogations from federal regulations.
This is not the only way he hopes to advance the development of AI. Cruz failed to obtain a moratorium on the regulations of the State AI included in the recent republican law on budgetary reconciliation, but recently said that it does not give up.
Meanwhile, other AI-related proposals have emerged: a “roadmap” from Senator Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Which would tax AI companies to resolve social and environmental misdeeds, and a Bipartite de Sens bill. Richard J. Durbin, D-UL., And Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Which would change the way in AI companies are held for damages.
However, Cruz may have the best chance of making fun of his agenda, taking into account his position at the top of the Senate Commerce Committee and potential support for its giant technological enterprises plan that push AI throughout their products.
This framework, which, according to Cruz, was based on “five pillars”, was mainly a proposal for a policy, but included its bill which would establish a federal “sandbox” for AI.
The bill would allow companies to apply to give up federal regulations relevant to their AI systems for 10 years, the White House – Through the Science and Technological Policy Office – designated to supervise the program.
The proposal already attracts criticism from the groups concerned by the potential abusive use of AI, and those who fear companies receive a room for maneuver which violates civil freedoms and consumer protections.
Cruz sought to solve these problems when he published the frame, saying that a sandbox was not a “free pass”.
“People who create or use AI must still follow the same laws as everyone,” he said. “Our laws adapt to this new technology and the judges regularly apply consumer protection, the contract, neglect, the law on existing copyright and even more in cases involving AI.”
The bill would oblige companies to explain how to renounce regulations would benefit customers, efficiency or innovation. It would also require developers to list predictable risks and explain how they are offset by advantages. The bill would oblige agencies to approve requests to identify how consumers would be protected.
In addition, the White House would ask the Congress every year to modify or repeal the regulations without which the program has shown that AI companies are “able to operate safely”.
The Bill sandbox is not universally popular with the GOP. Hawley said he didn’t like the idea and that the level of regulation is already low.
“Companies are doing well. As if it was … a myth that companies need this thing, this thing or the other of the government,” he said. “Companies are currently doing what they want. These are the richest companies in the world.”
Regulatory sandboxes, even those focused on AI, are not new. Texas and Utah have adopted laws to establish AI sandbox and Delaware is planning its own program. However, Cruz’s proposal would last longer and probably understands more companies.
It is according to Sophie Tomlinson, director of the DataPhere Initiative Programs, a research group and politics based in Switzerland focused on data governance. Tomlinson described sandboxes as “safe spaces” to test technology and practices while supporting innovation and “regulatory agility and flexibility”.
In Tomlinson’s experience, most sand bins take place for six months to a year, sometimes extended by the presence of a new cohort after the adjustments were made to the program after a first round.
Sandbox, said Tomlinson, can have different goals. Some focus more on conformity, while others consist of creating “a type of regulatory latitude, in a controlled environment for a specific period of time”.
She highlighted the importance of clear governance around responsibility and potential risks, in particular rules on data sharing or intellectual property in a program. She also said that it was preferable to be precise on the criteria that a sandbox is supposed to approach.
In the case of an American sandbox, she noted that the program would not be capped in a number of participating companies.
“A wide approach is quite interesting, but at the same time, it must be … significant. There must also be surveillance and attenuation of risks, as well as for regulators to really have useful learning so that they can also adapt, on the right, to innovation.”
An industry lobbyist who spoke under the guise of anonymity called the Cruz bill “an excellent way to meet some of the regulatory challenges with which the deployers of AI are particularly confronted”, but said that AI developers are more concerned with state level regulations.
The lobbyist also feared that the White House Science Office does not have the authority necessary to implement the program. The lobbyist said that the legislation should give power to individual agencies for sand bins specific to the sector.
Amy Bos, director of state and federal affairs for the Netchoice industry group, which has Amazon.com Inc. and Google LLC as members and works for “Free Enterprise and Free Expression” online, considers the bill as a good start to let “innovators innovate”.
“It really solves a fundamental problem, and it is … Our current regulation has been written for a pre-a world,” said BOS. “So … at the moment, I think you are seeing AI applications, they can be blocked by old decades rules that simply do not make sense for modern technology. And therefore the sandbox bill gives companies … These temporary derogations while maintaining … explicit health security protections, against public security risks.”
The proposal for a sandbox is less popular with those who are concerned about the risks that AI could pose. The bill would oblige companies to inform the sandbox program of all incidents that cause damage, in particular health and security or economics. The bill would define health and safety risks as including bodily injury, death or substantial negative effects. It would define economic risk as likely “tangible and physical prejudicial to the property or assets of a consumer”.
Cody Venzke, a principal policy of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the bill would give promoters and deployers of the “authorized” AI to violate important rules for consumer protection and civil rights.
“Sand bins, I think, should not be considered a kind of moderate compromise,” said Venzke. “They essentially give entities the permission to be exempt from the existing law. And these are laws that apply to everyone. And I do not see any good reason why we should say artificial intelligence:” You are special. You go out for free prison. “”
Cruz’s bill does not include a federal pre -emption of states’ laws or a moratorium on new regulations, but such a moratorium could still happen.
He said during an event last month that “I always think that we will get there and that I work closely with the White House”, but that there is not yet a ready plan for the way the moratorium could move to the ground. A proposal modified by Cruz was removed this summer from the reconciliation bill during a vote in the Senate of 99-1.
The industry lobbyist said lawyers were considering “all the available options”.
“I have been in conversations that envisage each element of moving legislation before the end of the year,” said the lobbyist.
BOS said companies want to avoid a “nightmare scenario” to navigate the regulations of states of different states on AI.
“We hope that the legislation will still be able to evolve this year. It is certainly, we have heard, a priority for the hill,” she said. “I think he has support from the White House, the Administration.”
Hawley opposes a moratorium, calling it “crazy” to pre -empt the states that have legislated to protect children from online exploitation or porn deeply.
“I want to protect children from all these things, and I want states to do that. You know? I mean, I think it’s a terrible idea to say:” Oh no, states, you cannot protect your children in your own state “,” said Hawley.
Venzke opposes pre -emption because he does not want to see the role of “displaced” states without federal regulation in place.
“States are, you know, famous the laboratories of democracy, and they are already working to resolve these questions, and this will help the federal government to formulate what its answer is.”
Apart from the Bill Sandbox, Cruz’s framework promises several objectives: rationalizing the infrastructures of AI allowed, federal data open for model formation, “freedom of expression”, “preventing harmful uses of AI” and “defending human value and dignity”.
Bos said “The Devil is still in detail, with the other invoices, but we love where it goes.”
The industry lobbyist said it was “a little early” to know how the framework would result in real bills.
“I would be really interested in seeing how he intends to write legislation protecting freedom of expression in the AI era and trying to defend human value.”
The lobbyist also feared that the free parts of the Cruz plan, especially if she descends on the path of the fight against “AI awake” could lead to losing the possibility of a bipartite path.
“This kind of ideas is more on messaging than trying to work with Congress allies to advance some of these principles,” said the lobbyist.
Hawley said he had a “somewhat different point of view” from Cruz on AI, and is particularly worried about workers and data use.
“I just think we have to set up railings that protect people and guarantee their rights,” he said.
During an electoral year, the lobbyist said, even the bipartite areas of AI policy could be politicized.
“In terms of similar, the bills have been adopted and things really move through the congress … I am quite pessimistic,” said the lobbyist.
—–
© 2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All rights reserved. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
