First comprehensive federal AI framework draft in Congress: safety, transparency, and accountability obligations for the largest frontier developers, paired with a three-year preemption of state laws that specifically regulate AI model development (states retain authority over AI use).
Vehicles carry asks; asks outlive them
Sorted by what filers wanted done to the rules
“Number one, I would form a new agency that licenses any effort above a certain scale of capabilities and can take that license away and ensure compliance with safety standards. Number two, I would create a set of safety standards focused on what you said in your third hypothesis as the dangerous capability evaluations.”
Speaker: Sam Altman, CEO, OpenAI. Third-party verbatim transcript.
“just come back to the question of, of whether we need an independent agency. I mean, I think we don't want to slow down regulation to address real risks right now. Right? So we have existing regulatory authorities in place who have been clear that they have the ability to regulate in their respective domains.”
Speaker: Christina Montgomery, Chief Privacy & Trust Officer, IBM. Third-party verbatim transcript.
“I think that would be disastrous. I to give a more specific answer to your previous question, which I think touches on why it would be so bad, there are three key inputs to these AI systems.”
Speaker: Sam Altman, CEO, OpenAI. Third-party verbatim transcript; transcript's 'I to give' artifact preserved.
“The RAISE Act would create a legal minefield for New Yorkers trying to innovate by imposing vague, unworkable standards that punish developers instead of bad actors. This bill would stifle AI tech development, harm economic competitiveness and undermine free expression. NetChoice urges Governor Hochul to veto this misguided legislation and support a clear, national approach to AI governance”
“We are therefore proposing a targeted transparency framework, one that could be applied at the federal, state, or international level, and which applies only to the largest AI systems and developers while establishing clear disclosure requirements for safety practices.”
“This level of forced transparency goes beyond reasonable accountability and may discourage responsible companies from operating in California. It also creates opportunities for misuse by malicious actors who could exploit disclosed model weaknesses or mitigation gaps.”
“While the code’s safety and security measures have been streamlined for greater clarity, they remain overly prescriptive and disproportionate – for example, with respect to external evaluations. Furthermore, key measures in the final code still go beyond the AI Act’s agreed scope and objectives, subjecting potential signatories to burdensome requirements.”
“Today, we’re announcing our intention to sign the EU’s Code of Practice for General Purpose AI—subject to the current version being formally approved by the AI Board during its upcoming adequacy assessment.”
“Europe is heading down the wrong path on AI. We have carefully reviewed the European Commission's Code of Practice for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and Meta won't be signing it. This Code introduces a number of legal uncertainties for model developers, as well as measures which go far beyond the scope of the AI Act.”
Speaker: Joel Kaplan, Chief Global Affairs Officer, Meta.
“After review, Anthropic intends to sign the European Union's General-Purpose AI Code of Practice. We believe the Code advances the principles of transparency, safety and accountability—values that have long been championed by Anthropic for frontier AI development.”
“We will join several other companies, including U.S. model providers, in signing the European Union’s General Purpose AI Code of Practice. We do so with the hope that this Code, as applied, will promote European citizens’ and businesses’ access to secure, first-rate AI tools as they become available.”
Signing announced with stated reservations on copyright departures, approvals, and trade-secret exposure.
“SB 53’s transparency requirements will have an important impact on frontier AI safety. Without it, labs with increasingly powerful models could face growing incentives to dial back their own safety and disclosure programs in order to compete.”
“Congress has spent a lot of time over the last year debating whether to do away with regulations for the AI industry – this bill is a welcome show of bipartisan support for creating rules of the road to protect the public.”
“California has proven that we can establish regulations to protect our communities while also ensuring that the growing AI industry continues to thrive. This legislation strikes that balance.”
“By enacting the RAISE Act, New York is once again leading the nation in setting a strong and sensible standard for frontier AI safety, holding the biggest developers accountable for their safety and transparency protocols”
“Sponsored and passed SB 53, California’s landmark AI safety law. Helped pass the RAISE Act, New York’s landmark AI safety law.”
Mutable homepage; quote verified live 2026-07-21. docDate records access date.
“And the federal government should embrace policy frameworks that preserve access to data for fair learning, advance a risk-based approach to AI applications based on existing regulations, and preempt a chaotic patchwork of state-level rules on frontier AI development.”
“This bill does not propose any regulatory scheme to replace or supplement the laws enacted or currently under consideration by the states, leaving Americans entirely unprotected from the potential harms of AI.”
Signed by 40 attorneys general, bipartisan.
“More than 1,000 AI-related bills have already been introduced at the state and local level this year. Without a federal moratorium there will be a growing patchwork of state and local laws that will significantly limit AI development and deployment.”
Coalition letter of 250+ business associations to Senate leaders Thune and Schumer.
“We, the undersigned organizations, call on you to strike the AI moratorium from the budget reconciliation text to protect our families. It is irresponsible and short sighted to strip children, creators, and Americans from all backgrounds of their most basic protections and tie the hands of state legislators.”
Co-led 140+ organization letter (with Common Sense Media, Young People's Alliance, ARI and others).
“However, its purpose is clear: create a standing mechanism for the federal government to attack a wide range of state laws even before those laws are fully implemented and, ideally, chill them from being adopted in the first place.”
“This is a disastrous proposal that Big Tech is celebrating. This bill strips states of their authority to respond to real harms consumers are experiencing.”