Kennedy plans kill-switch bill as Sanders unveils superintelligence ban
President Donald Trump dismissed warnings from artificial intelligence industry leaders as a “HOAX” and “conspiracy” in a social media post Monday even as bipartisan members of Congress advanced competing proposals for federal guardrails on the technology. The development marks a rare moment of bipartisan activity on AI policy during Trump’s second term, though lawmakers remain divided on what intervention should look like and how far it should go.
In the post, the 80-year-old president wrote that “the only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!” Concerns over the dangerous potential of AI intensified this week after tech leaders publicly warned about the rapid advancement of the technology and its threat to humanity.
While many politicians agree on the need to act, they are divided on what government intervention should look like and how far it should go. Some fear a pause on AI development could allow China to take the lead in the AI race and undermine national security.
Members of both parties nevertheless acknowledged the risks and pressed forward with legislative proposals. Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana said he would introduce a bill Wednesday requiring all AI companies to build kill switches into their models. Kennedy said the companies themselves, not the federal government, would control the switches. “It’s not going to put the federal government in charge of the kill switch. They would be in charge of their own kill switch, but they all have to have a kill switch, and I’m going to put that on the floor,” Kennedy said.
Senator Bernie Sanders announced legislation last week aimed at banning “artificial superintelligence.” Sanders is holding a private briefing this week for other senators that includes Max Tegmark, co-founder of the Future of Life Institute. Representative Greg Casar, a Democrat, will speak with Sanders at the Future of Life Institute’s “Pro-Human Assembly” on Tuesday.
According to surveys by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation, 85 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of Republicans want a new federal agency to monitor and regulate AI. The same surveys found 82 percent of Democrats and 78 percent of Republicans favor government safety tests for AI systems making critical decisions.
The bipartisan pressure comes amid escalating warnings from within the industry itself. Three Anthropic researchers warned last week that AI could destroy humanity within the next decade. Several AI companies have disclosed that their models hacked into outside organizations during botched safety tests, raising alarm about potential cybersecurity risks. Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei wrote in an essay that in six to 12 months a “swarm” of AI agents could attack the entire internet and cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. The viral panic over AI’s potential existential threat this past week has intensified the longstanding debate over the technology, which so far has resulted in much political handwringing but only a patchwork of attempts at regulation. Many AI experts, regardless of whether they agree on the merits of the Anthropic researchers’ warnings, see this moment as a unique opportunity.
Representative Don Beyer, a Democrat from Virginia, criticized Trump’s response. “History will look very poorly on that tweet. He’s not paying attention – or he’s paying attention to the wrong people. He’s being really foolish: not the first time he’s been really foolish but perhaps catastrophically foolish in this case,” Beyer said. Beyer called for Congress to stay in session instead of breaking for the midterm elections to work on AI legislation already introduced, and argued the industry should not regulate itself. “The first thing that I’m very certain of is that the industry shouldn’t be allowed to regulate themselves; history doesn’t support that at all. Especially when they’re making so much money, there will be absolutely no incentive to regulate themselves at a less profit. If we look at medicines or childcare workers or automobile emissions and safety, all throughout our economy, we have regulatory bodies that keep us safe and promote the common good and allow businesses to be profitable. We need something like that,” he said.
Former President Barack Obama weighed in Monday night, welcoming the current debate but warning that voluntary commitments from companies would not be sufficient. “At the end of the day, voluntary standards made by a handful of tech companies won’t be enough,” Obama wrote on X. “We need government – and specifically our leaders in Washington – to get proactive in coming up with concrete proposals, laws and regulations that deal with serious safety concerns, anticipate AI’s impact on jobs and our kids, and make sure that AI’s benefits are widely spread.”
Amba Kak, co-executive director of the AI Now Institute and a former senior adviser on AI for the Federal Trade Commission, described the moment as a rare policy opening. “You never waste a crisis is an old and well-worn adage in policy land. We’re looking at a really important policy opportunity and a policy window,” Kak said.
AI industry leaders have also suggested that they are open to increased oversight and the formation of some kind of standards body. Amodei’s letter advocated for international cooperation with states like China akin to cold war-era arms limitation treaties. Many AI regulation advocates are skeptical of industry proposals, however, arguing that AI companies are attempting to undercut strict government oversight and set their own terms.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer urged the Trump administration to provide a classified briefing to senators on AI and to work with members of Congress and industry leaders to implement guardrails and block China from accessing advanced American AI chips.
Some lawmakers acknowledged partisan gridlock could prevent legislation. Representative Jared Moskowitz, a Democrat from Florida, said he was skeptical Congress could pass meaningful AI regulation. “I think Congress has already shown they don’t have the capacity. The speaker has said, ‘we’re not going to do anything.’ In fact, he has said ‘we don’t know enough to do it.’ I think that’s not what the American people are looking for. The American people are looking for leadership,” Moskowitz said.
Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida was more blunt. “Did we balance the budget? Oh, did we pass a budget? See, what have we gotten done? So you think we’re going to get AI done? By the way, these companies that create a product that they think can destroy mankind – they have a responsibility to do it themselves. They shouldn’t be relying on us. I mean, it’s disgusting. I saw this as governor. People come, ‘go regulate me’. Yeah, we know what they want is they don’t want to be responsible for their actions,” Scott said.
Representative Jay Obernolte, a California Republican who is the lead Republican negotiating a bipartisan bill to govern AI, said Congress must balance regulation with innovation. “We need to avoid overregulation, so we need to achieve these two conflicting goals … of protecting Americans against very real risks of AI in the hands of malicious human actors, while at the same time balancing the need to have a light-touch regulatory environment that allows the positive benefits of AI to improve our economy and our society,” Obernolte said.
Casar dismissed the notion that AI companies should police themselves. “That’s like saying it should be bank robbers that are responsible for bank safety. The American people are waking up to the dangers of unregulated artificial intelligence,” Casar said. “You have these AI CEOs coming to take away people’s jobs, to surveil people and attack our freedoms, and now you have all of these whistleblowers talking about potential mass casualty events. So Congress should be cracking down on these big tech companies and on these AI CEOs, not like what Republican Speaker Mike Johnson and Donald Trump go and do. They go to these AI CEOs and ask for Super Pac checks for their candidates.”
Tegmark framed the moment in regulatory terms. “Every other industry in the US used to be unregulated. There used to be soothing syrup fed to infants with opioids in it. Then the FDA was created, now stuff like that doesn’t reach the market. Eventually safety standards came in. That hasn’t happened with AI companies,” Tegmark said.
Congressional members are holding a series of meetings this week with AI researchers and safety advocates. The rapid buildout of data centers has generated nationwide protests throughout the year and become a prominent midterm elections issue, while the tech lobby has spent millions attempting to influence political campaigns and shape proposed legislation.