House heads into midterm recess without AI safety bill vote
President Donald Trump dismissed concerns about artificial intelligence as a “HOAX” in a social media post Monday, amplifying his opposition to new safety rules on the technology. “AI taking over the World, destroying Humanity, and all other things bad, is a HOAX,” he wrote. He had argued earlier that the only control or “guardrails” AI needs is a “strong and smart” president.
His stated opposition has effectively halted prospects for federal AI legislation, given Republican control of both chambers of Congress. Any bill would have to clear both the House and Senate and would most likely require the president’s signature. Trump’s dismissal Monday ended near-term prospects for executive action on the technology.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called on Congress to delay its planned recess to address AI risks, even as Democrats themselves remain divided over how best to regulate AI. “Congress should not leave town until something is done decisively to protect the safety and the wellbeing of the American people,” Jeffries told reporters Monday. A group of House Democrats wrote separately to Speaker Mike Johnson, who would decide whether to delay the break, declaring: “We cannot disagree about the imperative for Congress to act.”
Johnson gave no indication Monday that the chamber would take up AI safety legislation this week. “This is a very complex issue,” he said after facing questions from reporters in the hallways of Congress. He added that Trump plans to convene a White House meeting with AI executives to discuss “the responsibility of the companies to maintain safety and what role, if any, the government has to play in that.”
Johnson emphasized industry self-policing as the immediate path forward. “We want to emphasise the necessity of [AI companies] providing safe products and self-regulating,” he said. “There is also a role potentially for Congress to play,” Johnson added, without specifying what that role could look like.
The House is set to recess at the end of the week and remain out of session until after the midterm elections in early November. Even if Democrats were to win control of both chambers of Congress in November’s elections, there would be no guarantee of swift action, as the party would still have to unite behind a single proposal. Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna suggested on X over the weekend that “Congress SHOULD convene a special session” to address AI. The prospect of a special session in the coming days remained unlikely.
Several competing AI bills are already pending on Capitol Hill. The Frontier Act, sponsored by Democratic Representative Lori Trahan and Republican Representative Jay Obernolte, would give the federal government authority to halt the deployment of an AI model if officials determine it poses an “imminent catastrophic risk,” and would require independent audits of AI research labs. “The federal government needs to put guardrails in place,” Trahan said. “I don’t think we have any more time to wait. This is all hands on deck.” Trahan acknowledged that any movement this week was unlikely.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican, and Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar are jointly developing a bill that would require some AI companies to submit to federal oversight. “You don’t want to stifle innovation, but I think you also want to make sure that the more advanced threats can be mitigated,” Thune said Monday. Senator Bernie Sanders has separately proposed a moratorium on new data centers tied to AI development.
Public safety warnings have come not only from lawmakers but also from senior AI executives, including Anthropic co-founder Dario Amodei, who has called for a slowdown in development. David Sacks, one of Trump’s top AI advisers, told CBS News on Monday that “this is becoming a panic.” “First and foremost, it is on them to make their products safe,” Sacks said of AI companies. Referring to Anthropic’s boss Dario Amodei, Sacks added: “Why are you acting like this is something that you can’t control? If you can’t control it, then don’t do it.”
Outside observers said meaningful federal AI rules are unlikely in the foreseeable future. Alexandra Reeve Givens, who leads the Center for Democracy and Technology, noted that the Trump administration has set up an entirely voluntary framework for AI companies to submit their models for government review, but said the framework itself remains secret. “There’s no clear standard to make sure that the approach is even grounded in the rule of law,” Givens said. Appeals from various groups to release the framework have so far gone ignored. “There is no question that federal legislation is challenging in this climate, but Congress also has to grapple with which of the many types of AI risk need to be addressed,” Givens said. “It’s not that AI is ungovernable, it’s that each risk needs a tailored approach.” Asad Ramzanali, director of AI & Technology Policy at Vanderbilt University, said congressional action would be preferable but added that “absent that action, the companies have autonomy.”
Skepticism about the recent insider warnings has also come from within the tech industry. Trevor Traina, a tech executive who served as a diplomat during Trump’s first term, said ordinary Americans have not encountered alarming AI products. “I don’t think the typical citizen has encountered anything scary or really problematic with AI,” Traina said. “We’re relying on the tweets of a half-dozen people who are all vying for perceived supremacy,” he added. “The cynic in me thinks, ‘Are they really concerned, or are they trying to prove which model is the most awesome?’”