Four years of AI in the US Congress

Industry influence and persistent disagreements over how to move forward

This is the next in a series of excerpts from my paper “Governance at a Crossroads.”

Today we will discuss what happened during the last two sessions of the U.S. Congress (2021-2024). In the next article, we will do a deep dive into the activity during the last session and the 150 AI-related bills from the 118^th Congress.

ChatGPT rendering

The 117^th and 118^th Congresses have shown significant activity regarding artificial intelligence legislation. During the 117^th Congress (January 2021 to January 2023), lawmakers introduced 75 bills centered on AI and machine learning or that contained provisions specifically addressing these technologies. Six of these navigated the legislative process and were enacted into law, marking a step forward in addressing AI through federal policy.

This activity doubled in the 118^th Congress (January 2023 to January 2025), with at least 150 AI-related bills proposed. However, none of these bills were enacted into law. One of our conversations with the Senate described an environment with “a lot of fact gathering, and, frankly, a lot of fact gathering on facts that are already been gathered by other institutions.” In parallel and during the same period, 636 bills were introduced at the state level, of which more than one hundred were approved and are now State Law.

In December 2024, Congress passed the FY 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which included the first AI provisions enacted by the 118^th Congress. However, the law is not regulatory and focuses instead on workforce development, creating AI education courses, and a Chief Digital Engineering Recruitment Officer within the Department of Defense. Within this scope, the act establishes pilot programs for AI in biotechnology, and manufacturing, and initiatives to improve AI usability. It also addresses AI safety and security, directing the identification of high-risk AI models and creating an AI Security Center. The NDAA emphasizes strategic planning, budgeting for AI data, and international collaboration through a multilateral AI working group. The AI provisions from the NDAA primarily affect the Department of Defense (DOD), focusing on accelerating technology transitions from research and development to operational use. These provisions may also influence other national security and technology departments, such as the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through collaborative efforts in AI research, development, and implementation.

Additionally, it is noteworthy to look at the following five pieces of proposed AI legislation from the 117^th Congress. They were launched in 2021, following a recommendation from the lengthy “Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets” report from the House Judiciary Committee. Starting in 2019, the committee performed a bipartisan top-to-bottom review of the market, focusing on the state of competition online and examining Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google business practices and their effect on the U.S. economy and democracy. It then assessed the ability of existing antitrust laws and competition policies to address market power and anti-competitive conduct in digital markets. While none were made into law, the report and associated legislative action significantly impacted the landscape of antitrust law regarding large tech companies. It highlighted potential anti-competitive practices and provided a framework for future legal action, new regulations, and increased scrutiny of mergers and business conduct in the digital market. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have been actively pursuing antitrust cases against major tech companies, including ongoing investigations and lawsuits against Amazon, Apple, Google, and Meta (parent company of Facebook) based on the practices identified in the report.

• Ending Platform Monopolies Act - U.S. Congress: H.R. 3825, 117th Cong. (2021).
  
  The Ending Platform Monopolies Act sought to eliminate conflicts of interest arising from dominant online platforms’ concurrent ownership or control of an online platform and certain other businesses. It faced strong pushback from major tech firms, who argued it would stifle innovation, hamper consumer choice, and disrupt popular online services. Critics also worried about unintended consequences for small businesses reliant on large platforms’ scale and reach and the viability of enforcement. The narrow committee passage signaled bipartisan skepticism about its sweeping restrictions, and it ultimately failed to advance, expiring with the adjournment of the 117^th Congress.
  

• ACCESS Act - U.S. Congress: H.R. 3849, 117th Cong. (2021).
  
  The ACCESS Act sought to mandate data portability and interoperability among major tech platforms. Critics raised privacy and security concerns, questioning how user data would be handled once transferred between services. Heavy lobbying from tech companies also stymied support, while debates arose about content moderation and editorial freedoms. It never reached a House floor vote and ultimately failed before the 117^th Congress adjourned.
  

• American Innovation and Choice Online Act - U.S. Congress: S. 2992, 117th Cong. (2021).
  
  Despite strong bipartisan support, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act was derailed by concerns over user experience, product integration, and content moderation restrictions. The bill prevented discriminatory practices by large platforms, prohibiting them from giving preference to their products or services (self-dealing). Coupled with formidable tech industry lobbying, lawmakers worried about the bill’s disruptive potential. Divisions within the parties over its scope and impact further stalled progress. Ultimately, these factors prevented the measure from reaching a Senate floor vote, and it expired with the adjournment of the 117^th Congress, ending its prospects.
  

• Platform Competition and Opportunity Act - U.S. Congress: H.R. 3826, 117th Cong. (2021).
  
  Critics argued that the bill’s stringent restrictions on large platforms’ acquisitions threatened innovation and undermined startup opportunities, as it could deter venture capital and prevent smaller firms from being acquired. Tech companies opposed the measure, citing harm to user access to free or low-cost services. Despite bipartisan support and a narrow committee vote, the legislation ultimately lacked the momentum for a full House vote and died with the close of the 117^th Congress.
  

• Open App Markets Act - U.S. Congress: S. 2710, 117th Cong. (2021).
  
  The Open App Markets Act promoted competition by reducing the gatekeeper power of dominant app store operators. It met resistance due to concerns about consumer security, privacy risks, and disruptions to the digital economy. Critics argued that permitting third-party payment systems and sideloading might inflate costs, compromise security, and hamper innovation. Despite broad bipartisan backing and a decisive committee vote, the legislation stalled without a Senate floor vote.
  

The failure of these five bills highlights deep-seated industry influence and persistent disagreements over how to balance competition with consumer protection.