With tariffs, tax cuts, and court battles center stage in Washington, DC, it’s easy to lose sight of policy debates that capture less attention but will have profound effects. Artificial Intelligence (AI) developments are a case in point. After President Trump’s AI executive order pulled back Biden-era frameworks, companies are left wondering what to expect.
Capitol Hill offers some clues. In this post, we highlight what you need to know about the common ground and fissures emerging.
Congress held six significant hearings last month (despite taking two weeks off) on the explosion of AI across American industries. House and Senate committees examined AI use across sectors, from energy to education to healthcare. Generally, members were both optimistic about AI’s potential and concerned about global competition, overregulation, and the potential for bias or misuse of AI tools.
For companies, this is the moment to prepare for AI-related scrutiny in legacy areas like energy, education, antitrust, and civil rights. The hearings showed that congressional attention is broad, (somewhat) bipartisan, and increasingly strategic. If your company operates in sectors touched by AI, it’s time to develop a proactive, policy-savvy strategy. Your AI footprint is not just technological—it’s increasingly political.
Congress very clearly is still educating itself on both the benefits and the burdens of companies’ use of AI. Once focused on issues like data privacy, AI policy is now expanding into areas like permitting reform and infrastructure. This is a significant opportunity for sectors to lean in on policy and introduce themselves to members of congress on both sides of the aisle. At the same time, policy differences between Republicans and Democrats began to emerge.
One thing seemed clear: congressional interest would likely lead to high-profile investigations and CEO-level testimony; the time to prepare for congressional scrutiny is now.
Bipartisan China Concerns
A polarized Washington seems to agree on one thing: American needs to win the AI race with China.
Last week, the House Select Committee on China released a report highlighting the ties between the AI model DeepSeek and the Chinese government and China’s rapid advancement in the AI space. The report stated that DeepSeek routes data from American users to the PRC, censors or modifies answers on topics sensitive to the PRC, and creates security vulnerabilities for the United States. The report also focused on the ways in which China has circumvented U.S. export controls relating to the advanced chips required to power AI models.
The Select Committee made several recommendations, described below, but its engagement is important for another reason. The Select Committee’s primary purpose is not legislative, but investigative. Its mission is to investigate and submit policy recommendations on the status of the Chinese Communist Party’s economic, technological, and security progress and its competition with the United States. AI will be a critical focus. The Select Committee sent letters in connection with its report seeking information from the private sector. We expect more to come.
Substantively, the Select Committee laid out a number of policy recommendations aimed at expanding export controls on advanced chips and increasing the enforcement efficiency for existing controls. The recommendations included:
- Increased funding for the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS);
- Directing BIS to adopt broader definitions in new export controls like capability descriptions in order to keep pace with the technology;
- Increased scrutiny of chip exports to jurisdictions with a risk of diversion to the PRC, requiring chip manufacturers to track end-users;
- Creating federal procurement prohibitions on PRC-originated AI models.
The Select Committee also recommended that national security agencies prepare for strategic surprises related to advanced AI that could prove to be destabilizing, and suggested defensive agency coordination. The report stated that the rapid emergence of DeepSeek should serve as a warning to U.S. policymakers that the PRC is capable of quickly innovating in the AI space. The specific recommendations included replacing the DoD’s Defense Technology Security Administration director from a career position to a Senate-confirmed position equivalent to the Under Secretary of Defense.
(AI) Infrastructure Week
Policy differences were on display during the House Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs look at AI’s infrastructure demands. (America’s AI Moonshot: The Economics of AI, Data Centers, and Power Consumption).
House Oversight Members debated how to manage the rapid expansion of data centers estimated to require an increase by 130 gigawatts including energy demands, permitting constraints, and environmental regulation. Priorities broke across party lines in the following ways:
- Republicans emphasized AI as a national priority requiring deregulation and infrastructure buildout.
- Democrats raised concerns over civil liberties, environmental protection, and market concentration.
Chairman Eric Burlison (R-MO) pushed for faster permitting, echoing the Trump administration’s Stargate initiative and GOP efforts to narrow judicial review and reduce state and local veto points. Ranking Member Maxwell Frost (D-FL) raised the civil liberties, copyright, and environmental risks of unchecked data center expansion, tracking with Democratic priorities.Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) framed AI as an issue of national security and strategic competition with China, and called for expanding the use of industrial policy and emergency authorities.
What to Know
- Permitting reform is now wrapped into AI policy with legal implications for administrative law and agency jurisdiction.
- There appears to be bipartisan agreement that AI infrastructure is now economic infrastructure, which raises questions about federal siting authority, grid planning, and ratepayer impacts.
- Stakeholders should expect a sharpening conflict between federal goals and local control that could result in litigation or legislative action.
- AI oversight will extend beyond data and models to energy law, land use, and administrative process. The legal and reputational implications are significant.
AI In the Classroom
The House Education Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education intended to hold a hearing about AI in K-12 education (From Chalkboards to Chatbots: The Impact of AI on K-12 Education). However, that was largely overshadowed by the recent cuts to the Department of Education. But Subcommittee members expressed enthusiasm for AI’s potential to help special needs students and personalize learning. There was also concern about data privacy, the effect on critical thinking and social skills, and bias.
Chairman Kevin Kiley, (R-CA) was cautiously optimistic suggesting that federal oversight might be useful in cybersecurity and privacy protections. Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) noted that it was impossible to separate discussion of AI tools in classrooms from the administration’s reorganization of the Department of Education proclaiming: “This is like worrying about the ship’s Wi-Fi access while the Titanic is sinking.”
What to Know
- Lawmakers expressed concern that AI tools have the potential to reinforce existing biases in schools.
- AI will require a new approach to curriculums to support, not supplant, student learning.
Cybersecurity and Healthcare
Which poses the bigger threat to healthcare cybersecurity – outdated technology or federal workforce cuts? This was a key question for the House Energy and Commerce’s Oversight Subcommittee in its hearing: Aging Technology, Emerging Threats: Examining Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities in Legacy Medical Devices.
Republicans pointed to legacy devices as systemic risks, while Democrats focused on staffing cuts at HHS and FDA that may undermine cyber expertise. Witnesses urged investment in security-by-design and stronger industry-government coordination. The hearing reflected a deeper divide over whether federal oversight is being scaled back or strategically refocused.
Chairman Gary Palmer (R-AL) called for industry-led solutions to outdated technology and rising cyber threats. Ranking Member Yvette Clarke (D-NY) focused on how mass layoffs undermine federal cybersecurity. Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) noted that members should focus on leveraging existing cybersecurity agencies to protect healthcare.
What to Know
- Balancing medical innovation and cybersecurity risks will remain an issue.
- There was bipartisan consensus that legacy medical devices are outdated and a case for government intervention.
- Expect news of government layoffs to conflict with security goals.
AI and Antitrust
Senate and the House Judiciary subcommittees looked at the antitrust issues surrounding AI, especially when it comes to digital market concentration. There is bipartisan interest in tightening enforcement and evaluating legal tools to address platform power, market access, and digital infrastructure.
Chairman Mike Lee (R-UT) highlighted his AMERICA Act, which would bar large advertising companies from owning multiple parts of the ad tech supply chain and suggests it will remain central to his legislative strategy for targeted, competition-focused reform. Ranking Member Peter Welch (D-VT) tied antitrust to consumer issues like right-to-repair and rural access, and endorsed the case for breakups as pro-investor. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) focused on barriers to private enforcement, calling for statutory changes to make it easier for individuals and small businesses to bring antitrust suits. His comments reflect a litigation-centered strategy aimed at decentralizing enforcement and empowering private parties.
In the House, the surprise testimony of FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya – a Democrat recently dismissed by President Trump –became a flashpoint. Democrats defended the agency’s role in policing competition and privacy, while Republicans criticized perceived overreach. There was bipartisan agreement that existing laws apply.
Key takeaways on AI
- Congress isn’t yet moving legislation, but there seems to be bipartisan consensus to call companies to testify and explore AI's market impacts.
- Existing antitrust laws will be enforced vigorously, and future legislation may target structural remedies like interoperability mandates or even breakups.
- Both parties agree: “There is no AI exception to the law.” Whether it’s antitrust, labor rights, or IP protection, companies using AI will be expected to comply with long-standing legal frameworks.
- The state-by-state patchwork is a growing concern. Companies should prepare for a potential national baseline to preempt local variation.
- Enhanced scrutiny is coming for pricing and data practices.
