Hawley Tests Trump’s Hands-off Approach To Ai

Sen. Josh Hawley's populist push against artificial intelligence is exposing a growing rift within the Republican Party as lawmakers try to thread the needle between backing President Donald Trump’s hands-off approach to regulation and responding to voter anxiety about the technology’s risks.

Hawley’s call for AI safety legislation this week — including imposing corporate liability when AI causes harm — contrasts with Trump’s approach to voluntary standards and the industry policing itself. But with more signs that voters fear mass job loss and economic disruption, Hawley’s approach places an unmistakable marker for anti-tech rhetoric in the 2028 campaign among ambitious Republicans.

“I think everyone kind of feels like the impact that this is going to have — not just on our economy but on how we live our lives — is reason to be concerned,” GOP strategist Jason Roe told POLITICO. “I think the politicians that seize on it are going to probably reach beyond their base, to voters outside of their respective parties that care about where we're going on this.”

The uncertainty could ultimately drive the politics over how to approach the technology.

“Almost 80 percent of Americans now are worried about AI,” said Sarah Kreps, who directs the tech policy institute at the Cornell Brooks School of Public Policy. “The obvious political position to take, if you are running this year or in two years or in four years, is to be expressing some position that is consistent with those worries.”

Republicans, though, are deeply divided on how to respond to AI. Some, like Senate Majority Leader John Thune, say at least “light touch” legislation is needed to regulate the industry at some point, while also still broadly praising Trump’s approach. Others, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, prefer a voluntary approach to regulations, which Trump also prefers.

Given the public’s increasingly sour view of AI, Kreps predicted other Republicans may feel compelled to stay quiet or “roughly align with some of what Hawley has been advancing.”

Hawley’s populist streak against technology is not new. He’s railed against social media companies over claims they censor conservative viewpoints, he’s gone after Flock traffic cameras and similar technology over privacy concerns as they track drivers across the nation, and he's raised concerns that online chatbots endanger children.

Hawley used a hearing this week on rogue AI to call for companies to be liable for the harm their AI models cause. His comments drew praise from Democrats, highlighting the bipartisan role Hawley could play in crafting legislation next year regardless of who wins the midterms.

That collegial atmosphere was the latest sign that Hawley has rekindled tech-minded alliances across the aisle, which had frayed in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol given his vote against certifying the 2020 election.

And Hawley’s influence could extend to the 2028 presidential campaign as more Republicans echo his tone on regulating the industry. Utah Republican Gov. Spencer Cox has called for Congress to pass AI safety laws and block the sale of high-end technology to China, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has called opposing AI safety a “losing position” for the party.

“I think there will definitely be an anti-Big Tech lane in the 2028 Republican primary,” Nu Wexler, a tech consultant and former Democratic Senate staffer, told POLITICO. “That might be Governor DeSantis, that might be Senator Hawley, some others. A lot of this will depend on what happens in the midterms.”

Tech executives were notably absent from Hawley’s rogue AI hearing Wednesday, highlighting their sensitivity to Senate scrutiny (Hawley has suggested he still wants to hear testimony from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman). Their executives, though, did fly in for a White House luncheon where they signed what the president called a “morally binding” constitution to police themselves on AI safety.

Hawley’s rhetoric could pressure Trump administration agencies to flex their regulatory muscles and enforce existing laws, even as Congress struggles to pass new ones, according to Evan Swarztrauber, a conservative tech consultant and senior fellow at the Digital Progress Institute. And with Congress out until after the midterms, it’s unlikely any legislation will move this year.

“Hawley is right to pursue this and I'm glad to see it. I think some of the AI companies have been trying to distract from their own liability, and potentially criminal behavior, by stoking the flames of debate over existential risk, antitrust carveouts, etc.,” Swarztrauber said. “I think Hawley being vocal could help ensure that we do see enforcement.”

Swarztrauber downplayed the idea that Trump and Hawley are at odds on addressing AI safety, arguing that the tech commitments to the White House should be enforceable under the Federal Trade Commission. “Maybe there's a difference in tone, maybe there's a difference in enthusiasm about AI as a technology,” he added. “But I think in terms of the actual approach, there's a consistency there.”

David Sacks, Trump’s former AI czar and still a current tech adviser, also defended the voluntary accord as “major progress” on Thursday, stressing on social media that the commitments can be enforced in various ways.

Still, the White House message risks missing the immediate anxiety voters are feeling about AI, according to Roe, the GOP strategist. He said he would advise candidates to follow Hawley’s tone.

“The White House seems to be focused more on our competition with China,” Roe said. “But you know, even if we were to prevail in a competition with China, that doesn't alleviate people's anxieties for how it disrupts our lives.”