Republicans Are Trying to Block My State From Regulating AI
I helped write, pass, and protect the nation's first law to regulate artificial intelligence. As part of Donald Trump's tax bill, Republicans in Washington are now trying to overturn our law in Colorado and preempt any other similar efforts around the country — as the need to regulate AI only grows.
The Biden administration formed the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute (AISI) in 2023 to identify potential major risks AI could cause. These federal guidelines ushered tech companies to move toward embracing regulation. Understanding the pattern of inaction by Congress, in 2024, Colorado collaborated with lawmakers in more than 30 other states, attempting to pass a new uniform AI regulation.
In the final days of the 2024 Colorado's Legislative Session, I was scrambling to whip votes for what would become the first artificial intelligence regulation in the nation, SB24-205, led by state Senator Robert Rodriguez. We realized an increased use of artificial intelligence, often unseen by the consumer, in important aspects of daily life, like health care, finance, and criminal justice should be a significant concern due to its inherent potential for bias.
AI systems learn from wide datasets, and if these datasets reflect existing societal prejudices — whether in gender stereotypes, historical lending practices, or medical research — the AI will not only replicate but often magnify these biases, potentially leading to discriminatory outcomes. This can result in unfair loan denials, misdiagnoses, wrongful arrests, or limited opportunities for just about anybody.
Republicans' 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — their effort to extend and expand Trump's 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy — has a dangerous provision to prevent states from enacting any AI regulation of any kind for 10 years. The measure would preempt our state law in Colorado, and have the federal government solely handle regulating AI — which it won't do.
That should have you very concerned because the enormous AI growth we've witnessed in just the last couple years will just get exponentially greater over the next decade.
As the Chair of the Joint Technology Committee in Colorado's General Assembly, I know what will happen if Republicans enact such a provision into law. Big corporations and tech bros will get uber rich, and we'll become victims of their AI experiments.
It's not easy convincing colleagues to show interest in a wonky, nuanced topic like AI, especially with the legislative clock running out, but with carefully negotiated amendments and the support of the Colorado AFL-CIO, we mustered enough votes to become the first and only state to pass the new law.
But state lawmakers knew very well that we had to take action because the Feds are notorious for inaction. Colorado's bill and other legislative efforts happening in tandem were supposed to set up a uniform policy any state could adopt to avoid the dreaded 'patchwork of legislative laws' in lieu of federal policy.
After our bill passed in 2024, we created a task force, prepared a report, had stakeholder meetings, and drafted legislation, specifically bill SB25-318, to improve compliance, accountability, and processes. We were intent on making a great law other states could model. When the second Trump administration gutted the Biden-initiated AISI guidelines, the tech industry was no longer interested in collaborating. The 'safety first' approach was lost and the free-for-all attitude was embraced.
On the third to last day of the 2025 session, we tried to push forward a bill to improve the AI law — but it became apparent that the tech industry was intent on derailing our effort.
Led by the venture capitalists, or VCs, and their lobbyists, they created a panic among scapegoats in industries like health care and education and small businesses, to call for us to 'do something about AI.' By 'doing something,' they meant extending the implementation of the current law an additional year so they would have more time for compliance. As a seasoned legislator, I immediately saw this as an obvious lobbying tactic to have more time to create a scheme to prevent the law from ever being enacted.
With my legislative colleagues shaken and convinced by the onslaught of the lobbying efforts, Senator Robert Rodriguez was unable to fend off the implementation deadline change, and he was forced to kill the bill. Unsatisfied, the tech industry was still searching for a way out of any regulation.
The next day, a seemingly minor bill, SB25-322, was on the calendar for debate. It was basically a simple provision the Attorney General needed for a lawsuit. I got called into several meetings with legislative leaders to talk about how to quell the manufactured VC panic. They proposed I become the 'hero' by running an amendment to SB25-322 to again attempt to push out implementation of our original law on AI regulations.
I am no hero to big corporations. I fight for the underdog, the worker, and everyday citizens who don't have billions of dollars to manipulate the legislative process. I said no to their proposal and offered a two month extension to give us time in 2026 to try another bill. That wasn't acceptable, so I went to war. I was not going to let anyone attach an amendment, and if they did, I'd kill the bill.
The unwritten rule in the state House and the Senate is the midnight deadline. Every day stops at midnight. Nobody knows what actually happens if we don't end work a minute after 12 a.m. and nobody has ever attempted to find out. The penultimate day of the session embodies the expression, 'If it weren't for the last minute, nothing would get done.' We finally got to SB25-322 at 10:40pm. They called for a vote to limit debate for one hour, which passed.
A representative quickly attached the amendment I swore to fight. If I filibustered for the hour, I still needed to fill up the remaining 20 minutes to kill the bill. I blathered for the whole hour and now it was 11:40pm. When time was up, they were successful in getting their amendment on the bill, and the bill passed. Most people don't know that the work of our legislative debate is not complete until we adopt the Committee of the Whole Report which we endearingly call, the COW.
The COW is intended for fixing mistakes. It has been often used nefariously. I don't take this lightly, but this was my final strategy for success. Using amendments I ran during my filibuster, I would say the bill actually didn't pass. In order to stop me, the Majority Leader moved for Rule 16 which calls the 'question.' This means that anything and everything that was about to go down would be done without any debate. It would allow them to just do quick votes on all of it, and 15 minutes was sufficient time. I felt a moment of despair. My efforts would all be for naught if Rule 16 passed. Then, we voted, and it failed. I was now able to bring my amendments, run the clock to midnight, and kill the bill.
Just seconds before the clock hit midnight, I was interrupted by the Majority Leader to call to adjourn the day's work. The bill was dead. I had saved the country's only AI law from certain demise. The Speaker was angry. There was a buzz of puzzlement and excitement. In the later days and weeks, those who paid attention recalled the events as legislative heroism.
Do I believe that Congress will ever pass meaningful AI regulation? No. There is a lack of courage to stand up for what's right, especially when big money gets involved. But it can be done. I know, because I did it. Unfortunately, not all elected officials have the intestinal fortitude to filibuster their own party to do what's right. So next time there's an election, do your homework so you can distinguish between the true public servants and the self-serving politicians.
More from Rolling Stone
Escaped Inmate Asks Lil Wayne, NBA YoungBoy, Meek Mill for Help
Elon Calls Trump's 'Big, Beautiful' Bill a 'Disgusting Abomination'
Neil Young Invites Donald Trump to Summer Tour After Springsteen Spat
Best of Rolling Stone
The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign
Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal
The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
39 minutes ago
- USA Today
Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.
Experts long argued that airstrikes alone would not be capable of permanently ending Iran's nuclear program absent negotiations. WASHINGTON — A highly politicized debate is unfolding over the impact of June 21 U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, raising questions over the attack's goal and projected impact. President Donald Trump quickly claimed total victory in the strikes' wake, claiming that Iran's 'key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' Subsequent scrutiny of that claim amid early assessments from intelligence agencies has led Trump and his allies to double down on and even expand on his declarations of success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed to CNN that the strikes 'obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' Iran itself has acknowledged the impact of the U.S. and Israeli attacks. But in the years since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, experts and analysts have emphasized that airstrikes alone would merely delay Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than permanently derail them. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, reiterated that long-held understanding in a June 26 interview. 'The targets are hard targets, deep targets, mobile targets. So it was never meant to eliminate the program,' Quigley told USA TODAY. 'It was never meant to do anything but slow the program.' The congressman, who is on the House's intelligence committee and has regularly received briefings on Iran, added, 'We've always been told . . . the only way to end this (nuclear) program is with a lot of troops on the ground for a long time. A war.' The former head of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nonproliferation programs, Corey Hinderstein, struck a similar tone. 'The conventional wisdom that you can't destroy the Iranian (nuclear) program through air attack alone has actually held,' said Hinderstein, now a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'While some are saying that the airstrikes were tactically and strategically successful, I think that the jury is still out on that, and we don't actually have the information that we need to believe that this program is gone.' Third nuclear site, hidden centrifuges, missing uranium Iran may have another nuclear site that, if equipped with enrichment centrifuges and conversion equipment, could continue the process of preparing uranium for use in a nuclear bomb, if the regime wishes to pursue one. Shortly before Israel began its air campaign against Iran, the regime told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had a third nuclear enrichment site but did not reveal details. Analysts believe an undisclosed underground facility at Pickaxe Mountain near the Natanz nuclear plant may be even deeper under the surface than the Fordow enrichment plant that was severely damaged in the U.S. strikes. The Pickaxe Mountain facility was first publicly revealed in 2023 by experts who spoke with the Associated Press. And it's unclear how much of Tehran's approximately 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or buried during the strikes — satellite images show cargo trucks parked outside the Fordow enrichment plant in the days before the U.S. attack. U.S. lawmakers briefed June 26 and June 27 on intelligence assessments of the strikes acknowledged the missing uranium and called for a full accounting of the material, according to CNN. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the news agency that the question of the uranium's whereabouts underscores the importance of Iran negotiating 'directly with us, so the (IAEA) can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there.' More: Where is Iran's enriched uranium? Questions loom after Trump claims victory. But whether Iran wants to negotiate is another question. Despite the country's obligations as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran's Guardian Council approved a law June 25 halting the country's cooperation with the IAEA and its inspections of Tehran's nuclear sites 'until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed,' the country's foreign minister said on social media. Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.


Fast Company
44 minutes ago
- Fast Company
WhatsApp just got banned on Capitol Hill. Here's how you can make the Meta messaging platform more secure
The U.S. House of Representatives' Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Catherine Szpindor, informed congressional staffers this week that WhatsApp is now banned from government phones. The move came after the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity deemed the Meta-owned app to be 'high-risk to users'—a claim that WhatsApp quickly rebutted. But the CAO is correct. While WhatsApp is one of the more secure messaging apps out there, it does have some privacy and security risks. Users can mitigate some of these risks, but others are beyond their control. Here's why WhatsApp is now banned in the U.S. House of Representatives and how you can make the app more secure on your phone. What the Office of Cybersecurity said, exactly The news that the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity had announced a ban on WhatsApp this week came from Axios. On Tuesday, the publication published parts of an internal CAO memo it received, which was sent to congressional staffers on Monday, announcing that WhatsApp was now verboten on government phones. The memo stipulated that 'House staff are NOT allowed to download or keep the WhatsApp application on any House device, including any mobile, desktop, or web browser versions of its products.' It went on to add: 'If you have a WhatsApp application on your House-managed device, you will be contacted to remove it.' The reason? According to the memo, 'The Office of Cybersecurity has deemed WhatsApp a high-risk to users due to the lack of transparency in how it protects user data, absence of stored data encryption, and potential security risks involved with its use.' The CAO didn't provide further details in the memo regarding the above risks. Still, it's easy to interpret some of the things that may have made the CAO leery about the continued use of WhatsApp by Congressional staffers. WhatsApp's transparency issue WhatsApp, like competing secure messaging apps including Apple's iMessages and Signal, is end-to-end encrypted, meaning that no parties other than the ones in the chat, even including Meta, can read the chat messages. But WhatsApp collects a lot more metadata from each chat than other secure messaging apps do, and it sends this info to Meta A chat's metadata includes information such as the identities of the chat participants, IP addresses, phone numbers, and the timestamps of messages. No one knows exactly what Meta does with this metadata. Still, it is shared with Meta's other platforms, including Instagram and Facebook. It is likely used to help the company build social graphs of users, leveraged for advertising purposes, and analyzed by the company to understand who is using their apps, and when and where. This opaqueness is likely some of the 'lack of transparency' risk that the CAO was referring to. As for the 'absence of stored data encryption,' the CAO may have been referring to the default method by which WhatsApp backs up a user's chats. While WhatsApp chats are end-to-end encrypted, if a user backs up those chats to the cloud, the backup itself is not end-to-end encrypted by default. This means that if a bad actor gains access to a WhatsApp user's cloud backup, they could read all of that user's messages. It's no wonder the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity finds this worrying. WhatsApp also doesn't have other privacy and security features on by default, including the ability to lock the app behind biometrics and requiring two-step verification when a WhatsApp account is installed on another phone. If you don't work in the House of Representatives, you can still keep WhatsApp on your phone. But you might want to mitigate its privacy and security risks. Here's how. How to make WhatsApp more secure on your phone Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about WhatsApp's metadata problem. Meta designs WhatsApp so that the metadata of your chats is sent directly to the company. There's no way you can turn this data collection off. But you can make the app more secure on your phone by following some simple steps, including: End-to-end encrypt your WhatsApp backups: In WhatsApp, go to Settings>Chats>Chat Backup>End-to-End Encrypted Backup and turn this option on. Now your chat backups saved in the cloud will be end-to-end encrypted. Lock WhatsApp: You can set WhatsApp to refuse to open without further authentication by locking the app. This means that even if someone has access to your unlocked phone, they won't be able to open WhatsApp unless they know your phone's PIN, or have your face or fingerprint. To lock WhatsApp, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Privacy>App Lock and toggle the feature on. Enable two-step verification: If someone logs into your WhatsApp account on their phone, they'll be able to see your messages. That's why you should set up two-step verification for your account. This will require a PIN that you set to be entered whenever an attempt is made to log into your WhatsApp account on a new device. If the PIN isn't entered correctly, the new device won't have access to your account. To enable two-step verification, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Account>Two-Step Verification and toggle the feature on. Apps the CAO suggests using instead When reached for comment on the CAO's decision to ban WhatsApp, the organization's chief administrative officer, Catherine Szpindor, told Fast Company, 'Protecting the People's House is our topmost priority, and we are always monitoring and analyzing for potential cybersecurity risks that could endanger the data of House Members and staff. We routinely review the list of House-authorized apps and will amend the list as deemed appropriate.' In the past, the CAO has banned or imposed partial bans on various foreign apps, including those from ByteDance, such as TikTok. But the CAO has also previously announced bans or restrictions on apps made by American companies, including Microsoft Copilot and the free versions of ChatGPT. As for Meta, a company spokesperson told Fast Company that it disagrees with the CAO's characterization of WhatsApp 'in the strongest possible terms.' The spokesperson also asserted that, when it comes to end-to-end encryption, WhatsApp offers 'a higher level of security than most of the apps on the CAO's approved list that do not offer that protection.' In the Office of Cybersecurity's memo, the agency provided guidance on alternative secure messaging apps that House staffers could use now that WhatsApp had been banned. According to Axios, those apps include Apple's iMessage and FaceTime, Microsoft Teams, Wickr, and Signal.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
At least 34 killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza as ceasefire prospects inch closer
At least 34 people were killed across Gaza by Israeli strikes, health staff say, as Palestinians face a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and ceasefire prospects inch closer. The strikes began late on Friday and continued into Saturday morning, among others killing 12 people at the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more living in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital where the bodies were brought. Six others were killed in southern Gaza when a strike hit their tent in Muwasi, according to the hospital. The strikes come as US President Donald Trump said there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, the president said: 'We're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of.' An official with knowledge of the situation told The Associated Press that Israel's minister for strategic affairs, Ron Dermer, will arrive in Washington next week for talks on Gaza's ceasefire, Iran and other subjects. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media. Talks have been on and since Israel broke the latest ceasefire in March, continuing its military campaign in Gaza and furthering the dire humanitarian crisis. Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, fewer than half of them believed to be still alive. They were among some 250 hostages taken when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7 2023, sparking the 21-month-long war. The war has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It says more than half of the dead were women and children. There is hope among hostage families that Mr Trump's involvement in securing the recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran might exert more pressure for a deal in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is riding a wave of public support for the Iran war and its achievements, and he could feel he has more space to move toward ending the war in Gaza, something his far-right governing partners oppose. Hamas has repeatedly said it is prepared to free all the hostages in exchange for an end to the war in Gaza. Mr Netanyahu says he will end the war only once Hamas is disarmed and exiled, something the group has rejected. Meanwhile, hungry Palestinians are enduring a catastrophic situation in Gaza. After blocking all food for more than two months, Israel has allowed only a trickle of supplies into the territory since mid-May. Efforts by the United Nations to distribute the food have been plagued by armed gangs looting trucks and by crowds of desperate people offloading supplies from convoys. Palestinians have also been shot and wounded while on their way to get food at newly formed aid sites, run by the American and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, according to Gaza's health officials and witnesses. Palestinian witnesses say Israeli troops have opened fire at crowds on the roads heading toward the sites. Israel's military said it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites.