Center for Data Innovation Urges Refinement of Proposed 'Great American AI Act'

U.S. Representatives Jay Obernolte (R) and Lori Trahan (D) have unveiled a discussion draft of the "Great American AI Act," a significant bipartisan effort to establish a coherent national framework for artificial intelligence. This legislative proposal is one of the most serious federal attempts to date to create a unified approach to AI governance in the United States. The core architecture of the bill is designed to move in a positive direction, incorporating transparency requirements for the most powerful AI systems, mandating independent auditing through licensed verifiers, and setting a federal standard to prevent a patchwork of conflicting mandates from fragmenting the national AI ecosystem. These foundational elements are seen as crucial building blocks for responsible AI development. The Center for Data Innovation (CDI) has lauded the bill's overarching direction, particularly its recognition that AI policy encompasses more than just regulatory measures. The CDI emphasizes the importance of concurrent investments in standards development, cybersecurity, research, infrastructure, and workforce readiness, all of which are deemed essential for ensuring the United States retains its global leadership in AI innovation. Despite this praise, the CDI also highlights that getting the structural framework right will not be sufficient without meticulous attention to detail. Michelle Lopes Maldonado, Associate Director of AI Policy at the Center for Data Innovation, has called for strengthening and improving the effectiveness of independent reviews, establishing a dynamic compute threshold mechanism that can adapt to evolving frontier AI capabilities, and ensuring that language regarding preemption scope and duration adequately considers state concerns while still enabling innovation. Furthermore, the CDI suggests adding transparency obligations that reflect AI's full impact, rather than focusing solely on its most dramatic failure modes. However, the bill has not been met with universal approval. Consumer advocacy groups, such as Public Citizen, have voiced strong criticism, arguing that the legislation would largely leave oversight to a federal government that has a track record of failing to enact meaningful AI protections. A significant point of contention is the bill's provision that would prohibit states from regulating the *development* of artificial intelligence models. This means states would be barred from passing laws requiring models to undergo testing before their public release. Critics contend that this preemption could undermine state-level efforts to address critical issues such as algorithmic discrimination, housing discrimination, employment discrimination, consumer fraud, youth mental health harms, and the exploitation facilitated by deepfakes. Conversely, the tech industry, represented by organizations like the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), has expressed support for the bill. They advocate for a national standard that fosters responsible AI development, deployment, and adoption across the American economy. The debate over federal versus state regulation of AI is a long-standing one. Proponents of federal regulation often raise concerns about the potential for fragmented national markets, increased compliance costs for businesses, and a weakening of America's competitive edge against nations like China. On the other hand, advocates for state authority worry that a federal, one-size-fits-all regulatory framework could entrench incumbent firms, stifle experimentation, and fail to adapt to the rapid evolution of AI technology. Beyond the federalism debate, some commentators, such as those from "Truth on the Market," question whether any level of government possesses the requisite knowledge, incentives, or institutional capacity to effectively regulate a technology evolving at such an extraordinary pace. They argue that the danger lies not just in potential regulatory mistakes, but in the risk that current assumptions about AI could be codified into future rules, thereby blocking the discovery of better alternatives and unforeseen innovations. The stated objective of the Great American AI Act is to create a national framework that protects Americans, supports innovation, and ensures the U.S. maintains its global leadership in shaping this transformative technology. The current discussion draft period is intended to gather feedback from stakeholders, experts, and the public to strengthen the legislation before its formal introduction, highlighting the complex challenge of balancing innovation with necessary protections in the rapidly advancing field of artificial intelligence.