Hello and welcome to Regulator. If you’re a subscriber, thank you for your loyalty; if you’re joining us from elsewhere, consider subscribing to The Verge. (And if you happen to be David Sacks: we stand by our words.)
As of Tuesday, President Donald Trump has pledged to sign an executive order aimed at giving him some federal oversight over AI regulation. I phrase it this way because there are two key points to remember: First, there’s no solid constitutional argument for an executive order to supersede state laws, especially on something like AI. The leaked executive order from the White House in November raised a host of legal concerns, not to mention the controversies surrounding figures like Sacks. Secondly, Trump himself hasn’t clarified what his goals are, which he announced on Truth Social.
It’s evident that this administration operates on a mix of authoritarian impulses and Diet Coke, so we can assume that while whatever comes out of the White House may not stand up legally, Trump will undoubtedly push his team to act, and to do so swiftly, without questioning his directives.
However, the political consequences aren’t expected to hit Washington immediately. This week, I’m speaking with Brendan Steinhauser, the CEO and cofounder of the bipartisan Alliance for Secure AI. We’re digging into whether AI regulations—or the lack thereof—will become a key issue for voters in the upcoming midterm elections. Steinhauser, a Republican strategist from Austin, has worked on campaigns for Texas candidates, including former Rep. Michael McCaul and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, as well as Sen. John Cornyn. He also has a background in early Tea Party politics, serving as national director of federal and state campaigns for FreedomWorks from 2009 to 2012.
Given his experience, Steinhauser knows how to connect with red-state voters but found mutual interests with Democrats when launching the Alliance in July 2025. It’s surprising that in 2025, a political group can have leaders who previously served under both the Biden administration and Texas Republicans. But that’s the fascinating overlap of AI and politics.
Currently, polling on this issue is still in its infancy. Two polls conducted by the conservative Institute for Family Studies in partnership with YouGov show that voters are against the idea of the federal government undoing state-level AI regulations. Yet, there’s increasing skepticism among red-state voters about the AI industry, which Steinhauser discussed with me during our conversation, highlighting religious objections, social concerns, and unusual bipartisan backlash against the idea of Washington imposing a moratorium.
“I’ve been advising Republicans for 20 years, and I know voters well. I just don’t think they’re envisioning what’s six months down the line,” he noted during our call.
“Square’s product chief discusses the death of the penny and the future of money,” featured Willem Avé’s chat with The Verge editor-in-chief Nilay Patel about AI automation and investing in crypto.
“AI ‘creators’ may crash the influencer economy,” reported Terrence O’Brien, showcasing how Jeremy Carrasco promotes AI awareness on social media.
“The fight against disinformation is a losing battle,” observed James Ball, explaining how misinformation-fighting systems have been misunderstood and weakened.
We also received initial impressions of “Google’s Project Aura glasses, developed with Xreal,” by Victoria Song, describing them as chunky sunglasses running Android apps. Meanwhile, Dominic Preston reviewed “Trump Mobile’s refurbished iPhones,” asking if anyone would pay nearly $500 for a three-year-old iPhone.
These discussions all connect back to voters, particularly as the clock ticks towards the midterms.
When I asked about heightened voter awareness of AI since the launch of the Alliance, Steinhauser explained, “It’s a challenging metric to assess, other than through polling and observing media coverage. In 2024, awareness of AI wasn’t there. But by late fall and winter, things changed dramatically. Kudos to journalists like Kevin Roose at The New York Times, Ezra Klein, and Ross Douthat for spotlighting the rapid advancements in AI.”
He credited a significant moment—the DeepSeek incident—for drawing attention to AI among everyday people. “That made a lot of folks, who were previously focused on other issues, start paying attention to what AI meant for their lives. The media’s coverage really helped; the release of new models also played a role.”
I asked about the negative reaction from states when Congress first discussed a moratorium on AI laws. Steinhauser explained that state legislators treasure their work and bipartisan collaboration. Many states recently passed their own AI regulations, fostering a sense of ownership and pride among lawmakers. When the federal government hinted at undermining those efforts, it sparked outrage, leading to calls and social media outreach to Congress members and the White House.
Turning to Texas, where Steinhauser is from, I asked what drives AI regulation in conservative states and why they’re resistant to federal oversight. “Texas embodies a conservative stance: it’s religious and socially conservative. Lawmakers are concerned about the ramifications of advanced AI, especially its effects on young people and mental health crises. There’s an instinctive fear that AI could replace faith, which resonates in discussions with faith leaders and residents.”
He highlighted the constitutional aspect of federalism, noting that many conservatives rally around the 10th Amendment, especially when federal efforts threaten their work.
“I’m pleasantly surprised by the bipartisan nature of this movement,” Steinhauser continued, emphasizing collaboration between staunch Republicans and far-left Democrats.
I asked if both sides genuinely aligned in Texas legislation, to which he confirmed that they signed letters together advocating for responsible AI policies, emphasizing that protection against harms to children and issues surrounding artificial general intelligence (AGI) were highlights.
Sen. Cruz has been vocal about advocating for a moratorium. I questioned whether this reflects a divide within the GOP around AI. Steinhauser mentioned that Cruz holds certain core beliefs and often takes principled stands on issues. He believes in addressing the rapid advancements in AI and that America needs to race against China in this arena.
“Cruz’s support for a moratorium comes from a mix of concerns. On one hand, he recognizes the volatile nature of AI; on the other, he does not wish to impose burdensome regulations,” Steinhauser articulated.
He added that despite the influence of tech firms and lobbyists pushing for less regulation, there’s a mounting awareness among the populace that demands scrutiny of AI development. “Until regular constituents engage with their representatives more actively, lawmakers will likely lean toward the immediate incentives presented before them,” Steinhauser indicated.
He emphasized that party officials may not be considering the long-term implications, focusing instead on current pressures from the tech industry. “They need to think ahead—especially as AI’s impact on the economy becomes clearer in the midterms. If the economy sours and becomes automated, voters will hold them accountable.”
Steinhauser concluded with a strong reminder that citizens must engage with political issues tied to technological advancements. “The stakes are high, and we’re already witnessing the effects of AI; people need to start voicing their concerns before it’s too late.”
