AI Policy: Can Congress and Industry Come Together
Recognizing their complementary characteristics to harness the strengths of both.
This is the next in a series of excerpts from my paper “Governance at a Crossroads.”
In the last few articles here at Tech and Democracy, we have looked at the views from the industry and Congress, as revealed by dozens of interviews we completed during the last six months. Today, we will look at areas of possible agreement.
According to our interviews, Congress and industry stakeholders share areas of alignment on key AI policy priorities, even though they often remain unaware of these shared perspectives. To different extents, both groups recognize the importance of establishing a regulatory framework that ensures safety, accountability, and trust without stifling innovation. Industry leaders, for example, frequently emphasized the value of clear federal standards to avoid the inefficiencies of fragmented state regulation, a concern echoed by congressional staffers who acknowledged the challenges of navigating a patchwork system. There is a solid alignment in that both the industry and members of Congress prioritize and see the value of preserving, protecting, and extending the U.S.’s global leadership in AI.
Another point of agreement is the need for public-private collaboration. Industry representatives highlighted the importance of government-provided targets and clear regulatory benchmarks, reflecting their willingness to engage proactively in crafting solutions. Similarly, congressional staff underscored the value of advisory bodies and task forces that bridge technical expertise and legislative goals. Both sides support public-private partnerships to foster innovation while addressing critical societal risks like bias, safety, and transparency.
Targeted research and development (R&D) can drive innovation to address socio-technical challenges. Policy and regulation alone will not close this gap; actual technical invention is needed. Historically, the U.S. government has invested in research via its National Laboratories, grants to the thriving American university system, and partnerships with research bodies in the private sector. Those investments were a topic of consensus across Congress and the industry during our interviews. By investing in R&D that explicitly addresses social, ethical, and safety challenges, the government and the industry can unleash innovation that mitigates risks and creates a foundation for sustainable progress while maintaining a competitive edge.
However, there remains a disconnect in communication and priorities. Industry voices often advocate for flexibility and innovation-focused policies, whereas congressional actors stress the need for robust safeguards to uphold public trust. Sometimes, this divergence is more about emphasis than substance, suggesting an opportunity for collaboration. By building structured platforms for dialogue, Congress and industry can move beyond perceived differences and craft policies that balance innovation with accountability. An industry observer reflects on areas of consensus and bipartisan agreement: the “main one is China, […] the U.S. should be the AI leader in the world, and that the U.S. cannot allow China to catch up or take over. In terms of how that’s implemented, there’s different viewpoints on what’s most effective. So, some people are like ‘Oh, maybe we should restrict some open source because that’s what China is using for their most advanced models.’ But then others are saying, ‘Well, actually, you don’t want any restrictions because they limit the ability of U.S. companies to run fast’ […] policy areas that are bipartisan include things like making access to energy and data center build-out in the U.S., more readily available and expediting that.”
Technology policy requires an understanding of both: A bilingual fluency in science and mastery of the humanities. An industry insider reflected on this struggle: “People in AI companies don’t tend to know about policy. I’m […] passionate about policy and AI. […] In my team at [redacted] I was the only person from a policy background. Everyone had technical backgrounds, and they were brilliant at what they did, […] but what we do is hard, too. You can’t just know computer science and intuit policy like it’s something that you can pick up overnight. […] A lot of people who do AI don’t know much about the world around, and they’re fantastically good at coding, and so when they’re thinking about risks […] they’re not coming to it with a particularly nuanced view. […] People who speak policy don't speak tech. […] People who speak tech don't really speak policy.” Implementing effective policy requires bridging this chasm.
The technological prowess of the private sector far outpaces that of the public sector, particularly in fields where rapid innovation and significant resources drive progress. This asymmetry reflects a fundamental reality: While industry is optimized to push the boundaries of technology and achieve market success, democratic governments are designed to uphold public trust and protect societal interests. These divergent mandates often create tension, as businesses prioritize profitability and shareholder value while governments emphasize safety, equity, and ethical considerations. However, this contrast need not be a source of conflict. Instead, it offers a unique opportunity for collaboration. Recognizing these complementary characteristics, a well-structured governance model can harness the strengths of both sectors.