The Future of AI Regulation: What Washington’s Changing Leadership Means for Businesses

A lawmaker with a record of regulating AI at state level is heading to Congress. Businesses that depend on AI tools should watch what follows.

Scott Wiener, the California state senator behind two of the best-known AI safety bills in the United States, has won the congressional seat in San Francisco previously held by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In an interview published shortly after the result, he made clear that federal AI regulation will be one of his priorities. This article summarises what he said and what it could mean for companies that use AI.

Who is Scott Wiener, and why does his election matter for AI policy?

Wiener wrote SB 1047, a 2024 California bill aimed at the most advanced AI systems, which Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed. He then sponsored SB 53, a lighter bill that was signed into law. According to the interview, both have influenced proposals at federal level.

That record matters because few members of Congress arrive having already drafted, negotiated and passed AI legislation. Wiener said he would be eager to serve on a select committee on artificial intelligence if Congress creates one.

What does he want Congress to do?

In the interview, Wiener set out several positions:

• A dedicated federal regulator. He called for a strong and nimble federal body for AI, and pointed to legislation proposed by Representative Ro Khanna to create one.
• Testing, auditing and whistleblower protections. He listed these alongside a requirement that advanced systems can be shut down.
• Congressional oversight of AI developers. He wants Congress to use its oversight powers to hold AI labs to account.
• No broad pre-emption of state law. As a long-serving state legislator, he opposes federal rules that would override state AI laws wholesale, and described states as places where policy can move faster than Congress.

He also said he had hoped Congress would act decisively before the end of this year, and that this now looks unlikely.

How likely is new federal AI law?

Wiener described himself as only cautiously optimistic. He cited the poor record of Congress on regulating the technology industry and the difficulty of getting legislation past President Donald Trump.

He also drew a line between two kinds of public concern. Voters recently approved a large number of local ballot measures against data centres, but Wiener said he sees that movement as driven mostly by local effects, such as electricity bills and water use, and less by the questions about advanced AI that motivate him.

For a business reader, the practical conclusion is that the direction of travel is towards more rules, while the timing remains uncertain.

What should businesses that use AI do now?

None of the proposals discussed is law, and nothing in the interview creates a new obligation for a business. Preparation is still inexpensive compared with catching up later. Based on the themes above, we suggest four steps.

1. Keep a record of where AI is used. List the AI tools and models your business relies on, what data they handle and which decisions they influence. Any testing or audit requirement will start from that inventory.
2. Expect state rules to keep mattering. If federal law does not override state law, a business selling across the United States may face different requirements in different states. Track the states where you have customers.
3. Ask your suppliers the questions regulators are asking. How is the system tested? What happens when it is wrong? Can it be switched off? Suppliers who can answer today are a safer choice.
4. Keep a person responsible. Where AI output affects customers, money or safety, make sure someone reviews it and can overrule it.

The takeaway

A change of personnel in Washington does not change the law overnight. It does add an experienced author of AI legislation to the body that would write federal rules. Businesses that already know where and how they use AI will find any future requirement far easier to meet.

This article is based on a published interview with Scott Wiener given after his election. Statements attributed to him are reported from that interview. It is general commentary and not legal advice.