AI Regulations: House GOP, Democrats Clash on AI Oversight

Congressional legislators clashed on the right approach for artificial intelligence (AI) oversight during a House subcommittee hearing to discuss AI innovation trends and competition held on Wednesday (April 2) in Washington.

Republicans and Democrats both recognized the benefits of AI and that the technology is advancing at a fast clip. However, they disagreed on whether to lean toward less regulation or more regulation, similar to the EU AI Act.

“There’s no doubt this is a big moment for both America and the rest of the world. The question before us today is this, ‘Will we respond to it with more freedom or with more government control?’” asked Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Wis., chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust.

Fitzgerald’s view: The U.S. should stick to what works, which is free enterprise, open competition and a “light touch” regulatory approach to let innovation flourish. “We should not copy China’s model of control. We should not copy Europe’s model of overregulation,” he urged.

While regulators still should monitor companies that are abusing their market power, “We don’t need a heavy-handed new regulatory regime to do that,” the Wisconsin Republican said.

However, ranking member Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., voiced his concerns that AI advances are concentrated in the hands of a few companies. He advocated for strong, independent oversight by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to protect consumers against unfair business practices.

“It is important that we keep a watchful eye on the industry with thoughtful regulation that will foster growth and innovation while protecting consumers,” Nadler said. “We need the FTC now more than ever.”

Read more: AI Regulations in States Shift to Pro-Innovation, Not Risk Mitigation

State Regulations, Workers’ Rights

Asked what role Congress should play in AI governance, Jessica Melugin, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said it can make rules clear.

“The biggest thing Congress could do would be to consider preempting the rush of state regulations on AI,” she said at the hearing.

Well-intentioned state legislators “see that Congress isn’t moving on this. They want to do something, but a patchwork of potentially 50-plus different regulatory regimes for AI is the kind of hurdle that could really slow us innovators down,” Melugin said.

However, former FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya expressed concern over the growing concentration of power in the AI industry, particularly in partnerships between major cloud service providers with AI developers such as OpenAI and Anthropic. These alliances may stifle startups’ access to critical resources like computing power, data and skilled engineers.

“We want a world where a scrappy startup can eat an incumbent,” Bedoya said.

Bedoya also highlighted the impact of AI on workers. He warned of a future where AI doesn’t just replace jobs but does so by using data taken from workers — often without their knowledge or consent — to train digital replicas. He cited examples from customer service, where individuals were scanned or recorded without proper disclosure, raising ethical questions.

“Technology is replacing workers through automation. It already regulates them. In the not-too-distant future, it will replicate them,” Bedoya said.

Bedoya urged Congress to consider strong workplace privacy legislation and support for collective bargaining to ensure that workers’ rights will be protected in an AI-driven economy. He believes that addressing how AI affects labor is just as urgent as regulating how AI companies compete.

“Workers need strong, bright line protections against this conduct — and they need them now,” Bedoya said.

Photo: Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Wis., House subcommittee chairman. Credit: U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust