AI Safety Group Targets State Legislatures to Fill Federal Regulatory Void
Public First is leveraging political spending and state-level advocacy to establish safety guardrails as Washington remains deadlocked on comprehensive AI law.
An AI safety advocacy group has launched a strategic campaign to push for AI regulations at the state level, seeking to establish transparency requirements and safety guardrails for frontier models. The move is a direct response to the continued absence of comprehensive federal AI legislation in the United States.
Public First, an advocacy group that has received up to $40 million in funding from AI developer Anthropic, is now actively influencing policy through political spending. The group is supporting specific candidates in the 2026 midterms to ensure AI safety remains a legislative priority. This shift toward state-level influence comes as various jurisdictions move to fill the regulatory vacuum left by the federal government.
A Fragmented Regulatory Landscape
The current U.S. regulatory environment for artificial intelligence is highly fragmented. While the federal government has utilized executive orders to manage AI risks, these lack the permanence and enforcement power of statutory law. Consequently, states have begun acting as primary regulators.
California has been at the forefront of this trend, introducing legislation such as SB 53 and the high-profile SB 1047, though the latter was ultimately vetoed. Similarly, New York has moved forward with the Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act. These frameworks aim to mandate safety testing and transparency for the most powerful AI systems, creating a localized set of rules that developers must follow to operate within those states.
The Cost of a Regulatory Patchwork
This shift toward state-led governance creates a significant tension between local ambitions and the desire for a unified national standard. For AI developers, the primary risk is the creation of a "patchwork" of conflicting regulations. When different states mandate different safety standards or reporting requirements, compliance costs rise, and the operational complexity of deploying a single model across the country increases.
However, proponents of state-level action argue that these jurisdictions serve as critical laboratories for policy. By testing specific safety requirements in California or New York, policymakers can identify which guardrails are effective and which stifle innovation, potentially providing a blueprint for future federal standards.
The Path Forward
As the 2026 midterms approach, the influence of well-funded advocacy groups like Public First is expected to grow. The central question remains whether these state-level efforts will eventually coalesce into a national framework or if the U.S. will continue to operate under a divided system. For now, the industry is watching to see if the political pressure applied at the state level can force a breakthrough in the stalled federal legislative process.