US Lawmakers Push for Federal AI Safety Agency and China Treaty

Representative Greg Casar of Texas has called for a temporary pause in the development of the most advanced artificial intelligence systems, arguing that the United States is currently engaged in a dangerous competition that cannot be won safely. Speaking at a recent summit in Washington, the Democrat contended that leaving these critical decisions solely to private technology companies is insufficient, and that the federal government must step in to establish binding safeguards before irreversible consequences occur.

According to Casar, the goal is not to halt innovation entirely but to impose a structured break that allows for the creation of a dedicated federal oversight body. He likened the current trajectory to a vehicle speeding toward a cliff, suggesting that prioritizing speed over safety guarantees a collective disaster. This stance positions the legislative effort as a counterbalance to the prevailing emphasis on rapid market expansion and technological dominance.

Legislative Path Toward Federal Oversight

The proposal, developed in collaboration with Senator Bernie Sanders, centers on the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act. This legislation would permanently prohibit the deployment of AI systems that exceed human control capabilities and mandate a temporary freeze on frontier research until a cabinet-level agency is established to enforce safety standards. Casar argued that the potential risks of advanced AI are comparable to those of nuclear technology, necessitating a similar level of governmental regulation rather than reliance on voluntary corporate audits.

The lawmaker also urged leading executives in the AI sector to testify before Congress under oath, aiming to increase transparency regarding safety incidents and internal risk assessments. By creating a formal regulatory framework, the bill seeks to address broader societal concerns, including the potential for mass unemployment and widespread surveillance, which Casar described as urgent issues requiring immediate congressional attention.

Diplomatic Strategy With China

Central to Casar’s argument is the need for an enforceable and verifiable treaty with China. He suggested that by voluntarily restricting the most extreme American frontier development, the United States could signal its seriousness in negotiating a global agreement. According to the Representative, Chinese models are currently trained on American systems, meaning that a coordinated pause could effectively slow the pace of development on both sides of the Pacific while establishing a stable diplomatic baseline.

This approach is framed as an effort to end the arms race rather than merely winning it. Casar emphasized that the United States should lead in AI diplomacy, using domestic regulatory measures as leverage to secure international commitments. The strategy aims to prevent a scenario where competing nations develop dangerous technologies in isolation, thereby reducing the likelihood of catastrophic misuse or accidental escalation.

Political Resistance and Executive Stance

The legislative push faces significant opposition from the current administration and some congressional colleagues. President Donald Trump recently rejected calls for additional federal AI regulation, arguing that existing authorities are sufficient and that further restrictions would undermine American competitiveness. In a series of online posts, the President characterized warnings about catastrophic AI risks as a hoax and suggested that limitations would primarily benefit China in the ongoing technological rivalry.

Republican Representative Brett Guthrie echoed these sentiments, questioning the logic of limiting American innovation while expecting China to adhere to similar constraints. This divergence highlights a growing ideological split within the political establishment over how to balance national security, economic growth, and technological safety. As the formal bill text is expected to be released soon, the debate is likely to intensify, with industry leaders and policymakers weighing the merits of strict regulation against the risks of stifling innovation.