Friday at 11 a.m. Eastern: Join Deputy Editor Yun-Hee Kim, Lead AI & Tech Analyst Dan Gallagher, Brendan Steinhauser of The Alliance for Secure AI, and Brad Carson of Americans for Responsible Innovation, for a post-election analysis of what the midterm results means for AI and tech policy in Washington. RSVP here
The Lead Brief
Now that the midterms are over, AI safety groups are turning their focus to the behind-the-scenes battle over certain committee and subcommittee gavels in Congress — which are poised to have outsize influence over AI policy next year.
In a letter exclusively shared with WP Intelligence, more than 50 organizations working on AI safety — led by Americans for Responsible Innovation (ARI), Demand Progress, Encode and Tech Oversight Project — are writing congressional Democratic leadership to insist that House and Senate leadership positions be filled by members strong on AI safety.
“As you plan to take leadership of the House and Senate, we write today to urge you to address those concerns by appointing lawmakers who make strong, forward-looking commitments to advancing robust AI guardrails to positions of leadership in the new Congress,” the groups write in the Thursday letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) and other leaders of the Democratic Party.
“In particular, we ask that you assess candidates for chair and subcommittee chair ranking positions based on their support for binding AI regulations, their opposition to state AI law preemption, and their rejection of anti-regulatory super PAC money in this year’s midterms,” the groups write in the letter.
Stepping back: The months leading up to Election Day saw money pouring into congressional races from both the AI industry-aligned Leading the Future super PAC network and AI safety super PACs, including the Public First network led by ARI president Brad Carson.
In Congress, Democrats have also put out differing proposals to regulate frontier AI. Rep, Lori Trahan (D-Massachusetts) drew heat and attack ads from ARI for her cooperation with Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-California) on bipartisan AI legislation that would block some state AI laws and create a network of third-party evaluators to test AI lab safety.
In contrast, lawmakers such as Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) have put out proposals that would have the federal government — specifically, scientists at Department of Energy labs — lead testing of AI models directly as opposed to third-party evaluators.
“Candidates for relevant chair and subcommittee chair positions should support an AI regulatory regime that empowers the government, not AI companies, to set AI rules,” the groups write.
Disqualifying factors: In their letter, the groups also argue that committee and subcommittee leadership should be held to a “high standard,” including a “commitment to mandatory AI regulations” and “opposition to preemption” of state AI laws.
The groups also say that Democratic leadership should be wary of elevating lawmakers who received support from the Leading the Future super PAC network, which is funded by executives from venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and Palantir Technologies.
“Congressional leadership should prioritize candidates for committee leadership positions who have not received financial backing from anti-regulatory super PACs such as Leading the Future (LTF) or who have explicitly rejected such super PACs,” the groups write.
The Legislative Chessboard
There are several key gavels on the House Energy and Commerce, Science and Appropriations Committees that will have outsize influence over AI policy.
And then there’s the potential for Democratic leaders to form a new select committee on artificial intelligence — the seats for which could be subject to proxy wars between the AI safety groups and anti-regulation advocacy arms of influential venture capital firms in Washington.
According to a person involved in crafting the new letter, a couple of the safety groups were concerned that Trahan might be looking to make a play for the commerce, manufacturing and trade subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee — which would have jurisdiction over AI-related consumer protection, product liability and data privacy issues, including at the Federal Trade Commission.
- The other gavel AI safety groups are eyeing is the House Science Subcommittee on Research and Technology, which includes a remit over the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); its AI evaluating body, the Center for Advancing Innovation and Standards for Super Intelligence; and the National Science Foundation and related bodies that test AI models and provide AI resources to academic research institutions.
According to the person, several of the safety groups that wrote the letter have concerns that Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Virginia), a former Obama White House tech policy adviser, would chair the subcommittee.
The concerns stem from Subramanyam’s co-chairmanship of the newly formed House Innovators Caucus, which is backed by the Andreessen Horowitz (a16z)-linked policy coalition the American Innovators Network, according to the person.
The person also pointed to LTF’s endorsement of Subramanyam earlier this year — and the lawmaker’s backing of the “Great American AI Act,” legislation by Obernolte and Trahan that would preempt some state AI laws.
Other important posts include the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, which funds the Commerce Department and the NSF, among other agencies. Rep. Grace Meng (D-New York), the current ranking member on the committee, is expected to chair it next year.