Kevin T. Frazier,Director of the AI Innovation and Law Program at the University of Texas.
The word "surge" does not do justice to the scale of what happened in the US elections. "Tsunami" may not be an accurate comparison either, given how short-lived it was. Perhaps a "Kelvin wave" is the closest oceanic phenomenon to what unfolded. Republicans lost seats they had held for a long time, much like a small boat capsizing amid a powerful wave. Democrats swept states that, just two years ago, had been among the strongest supporters of President Donald Trump. Voters made it clear that they no longer supported an agenda that fails to address the everyday concerns of Americans and, in many cases, is not grounded in evidence-based reality.
Nevertheless, this Democratic wave may not translate into major changes in AI policy, at least at the federal level. Passing legislation requires securing the necessary votes in both chambers of Congress. The House of Representatives, which has shifted decisively toward the Democrats, appears ready to pass several bills addressing AI and other issues. Prominent Democrats have made a pledge, declaring: "Relief is on the way."
However, bills generally need 60 votes in the Senate, a number close to the total Democrats are expected to control once the vote count is complete. This means Senate Democrats and Republicans will have to reach compromises on contentious issues if they are to send bills to the White House. Even if they succeed, those bills may still fail to become law if the president exercises his veto power.
However striking the Democrats' victory may be, they remain far short of the majority needed to override a presidential veto. There is still a possibility that President Trump will support some of Congress's legislative proposals, a possibility he himself acknowledged during an election night marked by major surprises. But the chances of this happening regularly appear slim.
This puts Congress in a good position to revive one of its most important powers, which has been neglected in recent years: its investigative and oversight authority.
Winners in Tuesday's elections have already warned those potentially involved in fraud, corruption or other possibly illegal activities to "get lawyers." This warning reflects Congress's ability to shine a spotlight on specific entities and practices that warrant greater public scrutiny.
Just days before the elections, Democratic leaders of House committees expressed interest in using legal means to compel companies developing advanced AI models to provide more information. They are now in a much stronger position to pursue this course and take further action.
The main challenge is to ensure that these reports, hearings and studies do not become mere ammunition for the next election battle, but instead lead to a comprehensive, accurate and rigorous analysis of the AI industry.
In areas where Congress is unable to pass legislation, states are expected to step in to fill many of the regulatory gaps, within the constitutional limits on their authority to regulate interstate commerce and matters relating to national security.
Governors who campaigned on opposing data center projects that bypassed required procedures and AI practices that disregarded technical safety safeguards are preparing to implement this agenda. They will find many local lawmakers ready to support them.
There is no doubt that opposition to AI development, and to Big Tech companies more broadly, was among the factors that influenced the elections. Elected officials will seek to respond to this popular mandate sooner rather than later to demonstrate that they have listened to their voters.
But realism is also essential here. However great people's concerns and frustrations about AI may be, the fact remains that it presents both opportunities and risks.
Lawmakers would be wise to adopt performance-based legislation that includes sunset clauses, allowing the impact of these laws to be reviewed and reducing the likelihood of repeating the procedural deadlocks Democrats encountered in the environmental field.
A new political landscape has taken shape, making new compromises, ideas and regulatory frameworks possible.
But the key lies not simply in governing differently, but in governing better. How this recommendation will translate into AI policy remains to be seen.
