Both parties reject AI moratorium, citing past partisan precedents
Both parties have pushed back against a blanket pause on artificial‑intelligence research, arguing that history already shows how partisan moves can backfire. The debate resurfaced after lawmakers cited earlier episodes where the Senate and the White House clashed over technology policy. While the idea of a moratorium sounds simple, the reality is tangled in past legislative battles and electoral calculations.
Critics point to moments when Republicans, holding the reins of power, tried to steer emerging tech in a direction that aligned with their broader agenda. Yet the same lawmakers now claim they’re acting out of caution, not partisanship. The tension raises a question: are officials really trying to protect citizens, or are they repeating a playbook from previous administrations?
The answer, according to one insider, is more nuanced than the headlines suggest.
*We've seen this in a few instances in the Trump administration with Republicans here in power. But mostly, I've seen it on AI because I think...*
We've seen this in a few instances in the Trump administration with Republicans here in power. But mostly, I've seen it on AI because I think it's an issue that these lawmakers want to get ahead of and make sure they're protecting their citizens. To be honest with you, I've been pleasantly surprised and somewhat encouraged by the bipartisan nature of this effort.
The fact that you have these very far-right Republicans in the legislature in Texas and these far-left Democrats getting together on this and joining hands has been pretty spectacular. So I think that really shows how powerful this movement can be.
Both parties have pushed back against an AI moratorium, a stance that echoes earlier partisan moves, especially those seen during the Trump administration when Republicans held sway. The article notes that “both sides of the aisle hate the AI moratorium,” suggesting a rare point of consensus, yet the phrasing also hints at lingering disagreement about how to regulate the technology. One quoted lawmaker admits the issue feels “like something these lawmakers want to get ahead of and make sure they're protecting their citizens,” underscoring a protective impulse that transcends party lines.
At the same time, the same source describes the reaction as “pleasantly surprised,” a vague sentiment that leaves the depth of that surprise unclear. What remains uncertain is whether this shared opposition will translate into concrete policy or simply linger as rhetorical opposition. The article offers no details on proposed alternatives, leaving readers without a clear picture of the next steps.
Thus, while bipartisan disdain for a moratorium is evident, the path forward for AI governance is still ambiguous.
Further Reading
- AI Regulation and Federalism: What the Moratorium (That Wasn't) Debate Revealed - George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center
- Moratoriums and Federal Preemption of State Artificial Intelligence Laws Pose Serious Risks - Center for American Progress
- AI Policy Already Exists, We Just Don’t Call It That: Generally Applicable Law for New Technology - Cato Institute
- Debate Over Regulating AI Remains Despite Being Stripped From Tax Bill - 13 WHAM/ABC via Northeastern University
- Eliminating State Law ‘Obstruction’ of National Artificial Intelligence Policy – Part I - Yale Journal on Regulation
More in Policy & Regulation
Deepseek uses thousands of smuggled Nvidia chips for AI training in China
Deepseek’s latest AI models are being trained on thousands of Nvidia GPUs that, according to...
OpenAI, Anthropic and Block Form Foundation to Advance Action‑Based AI Agents
Why does this matter? OpenAI, Anthropic and Block have announced a joint foundation dedicated to...
OpenAI drops 'cameo' label from Sora app after legal action, called 'characters
OpenAI’s Sora app has found itself in a naming dispute that forced a quick UI tweak.
Far‑right groups rally against Trump’s AI czar David Sacks in Washington
The far‑right’s push against David Sacks has taken on a surprisingly procedural tone.
OpenAI, Microsoft sued for scraping newspapers and using text without license
A wave of legal challenges is converging on two of the most visible AI players, accusing them of...
Common Questions Answered
Why do both parties reject an AI moratorium according to the article?
The article explains that both parties view a blanket pause on AI research as ineffective because historical partisan attempts, such as those during the Trump administration, have often backfired. They argue that a moratorium could hinder innovation while failing to address underlying regulatory concerns.
What past partisan precedent is cited to illustrate the risks of an AI moratorium?
The piece references the Trump administration, when Republicans held power and attempted to steer technology policy in ways that later proved contentious. This historical example is used to argue that similar partisan moves on AI could lead to political backlash and regulatory gridlock.
How does the article describe the bipartisan nature of the current AI debate?
According to a quoted lawmaker, the effort to address AI regulation has surprisingly attracted both far‑right Republicans in Texas and far‑left Democrats, creating a rare moment of bipartisan cooperation. This cross‑aisle collaboration is highlighted as encouraging despite lingering disagreements on specific regulatory approaches.
What lingering disagreement does the article suggest remains despite both sides opposing an AI moratorium?
While both Republicans and Democrats agree that a full moratorium is undesirable, the article notes that they still differ on how to regulate AI, with some lawmakers wanting proactive measures to protect citizens and others concerned about over‑regulation. This tension reflects broader debates over the balance between innovation and safety.