A framework the White House has issued to guide Congress toward federal legislation to uniformly govern artificial intelligence is woefully lacking in recommendations for moving the policy needle forward, according to civil society groups, who say the proposal primarily serves to protect industry profits at the expense of average Americans.
“The framework is light on substance and holds little surprises, but the throughline remains -- this protects Big Tech's bottom line over everyday people," Ben Winters, director of AI and data privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, said in a March 20 release.
His comment was in contrast to those of White House supporters like Adam Thierer, a senior fellow for technology and innovation at the free-market R Street Institute, who cheered the framework especially in comparison to a proposal from Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) that he described as a recipe for “open-ended liability.”
“When crafting a federal AI policy framework,” Thierer in a March 20 post said the administration “correctly noted that ‘Congress should not create any new federal rulemaking body to regulate AI, and should instead support development and deployment of sector-specific AI applications through existing regulatory bodies with subject matter expertise and through industry-led standards.’”
But CFA’s Winters argues that stated approach is inconsistent with the administration’s actions, including at the Federal Trade Commission where he told Inside AI Policy, “There were millions in requested reductions of resources,” and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau where he said cases were undone and there are “continued efforts to kill [the agency] entirely.”
"It’s encouraging to see some stated desires to protect people from AI-generated scams and data abuse of minors,” he said of the framework, “but it’s not enough and is outweighed by its pro-AI, anti-person stance on preemption and enforcement.”
Winters said, “We need to see money where their mouth is on the protections -- more money for consumer protection agencies at both the federal and state levels. So far, they’ve done nothing but cut and hamstring them.”
R Street’s Thierer said the framework addressed the core areas for policy making -- including online safety, copyright issues, and free speech -- and that it’s now up to Congress to act.
“The ball is in Congress’ court now,” he said. “The Trump administration has provided lawmakers with a foundation for AI governance that can address runaway state over-regulation while helping ensure America’s continued global leadership in advanced computation and emerging technology. Congress needs to step up and craft a sensible framework based on that vision.”
But Ruth Whittaker, director of technology policy for the centrist Third Way think tank said the White House should have done more and that the framework is unserious.
“The White House’s AI Policy Framework is heavy on rhetoric but light on real solutions,” she said in a March 20 release. “While it gestures toward widely shared priorities -- protecting kids, ensuring energy costs don’t rise for families, and managing the risks of emerging technology -- it lacks the policy details needed to actually deliver on those goals. At a moment when AI is rapidly reshaping the economy and society, platitudes are not a substitute for governance.”
Whittaker said, “Everyone agrees that children should be protected and families shouldn’t bear the costs of technological disruption. The question is how. This framework sidesteps the hard choices -- failing to outline enforceable standards, clear accountability measures, or meaningful safeguards.”
“If the Administration is serious about addressing both the promise and the risks of AI,” Whittaker said, “we stand ready to move beyond broad principles and cooperate on policies that match the scale and urgency of the challenge.”