Reflections on Three AI Hearings from the Past Three Months

Artificial intelligence (AI) activity is heating up again in Congress, with committees holding hearings to investigate various AI policy issues. Over the past three months, I have testified on behalf of the R Street Institute at three separate AI-related hearings held in the U.S. House of Representatives. Each hearing addressed a different policy subtopic: competition with China in the race for global AI supremacy, federal versus state regulation of algorithmic systems, and federal government use of AI systems.

This diversity in topics reflects the fact that AI policy has expanded rapidly and now touches almost every facet of public policy. These hearings offered some insight into how the debate over AI policy has changed over the past two years and where Congress might head next on these issues.

April 8 Hearing: “DeepSeek: A Deep Dive”

Committee: House Subcommittee on Research and Technology in the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Focus: The hearing’s focus, as Committee Chairman Brian Babin (R-Texas) noted in a statement, was “to examine the impact of DeepSeek’s artificial intelligence models on America’s technological leadership, innovation ecosystem, and national security.” DeepSeek, a major Chinese AI developer, caught the world by surprise in late January with the launch of its open-source “R1” AI model. R1 competes favorably with leading U.S.-made models and does so at a lower cost. Several policymakers and pundits referred to this development as a “Sputnik moment” for the United States.

My Message: My testimony summarized the findings of my three-part R Street series “Ramifications of China’s DeepSeek Moment.” President Donald J. Trump and other lawmakers were right to call the DeepSeek moment a “wake-up call” for the nation because America’s technological lead and national security can no longer be taken for granted given China’s rapidly advancing AI capabilities. My R Street series and testimony also stressed that cultural and speech-related values are also at stake in the global debate over AI governance because the Chinese Communist Party is looking to export its values of control, surveillance, and censorship in its tech products. This represents a danger to free speech and human rights more broadly, I argued.

I concluded my testimony by outlining an eight-part “pro-freedom AI opportunity agenda” that America should follow to beat China:

1. Embrace open-source AI innovation and let it blossom globally.
2. Ensure diverse, competitive energy markets for AI advancement.
3. Win the talent war by attracting the world’s best and brightest data scientists and computer engineers.
4. Ensure balanced copyright and data privacy policies.
5. Craft a national framework that preempts or puts a moratorium on the confusing patchwork of state and local AI proposals pending today.
6. Require federal agencies to review their existing policies to determine how they might be hampering AI innovation.
7. Ensure agencies have the resources and training needed to address novel AI-related issues, especially cybersecurity matters,
8. Defend the importance of free speech in the algorithmic age.

Key Takeaway: The hearing made it clear that winning the “AI Cold War” for global AI dominance has become a top congressional concern.

May 21 Hearing: “AI Regulation and the Future of US Leadership”

Committee: House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade in the Committee on Energy and Commerce

Focus: As the Committee hearing memo noted, this hearing focused on how the European Union (EU) is looking to regulate AI under its new AI Act and whether the EU is discriminating against U.S. firms. The hearing also examined the growing patchwork of state AI laws, noting that over 1,000 AI-related AI bills  were introduced in the first four months of 2025.  

My Message: In my testimony, I made three arguments:

1. First, America’s AI innovators risk getting squeezed between the “Brussels Effect” of overzealous European regulation and the “Sacramento Effect” of excessive state and local mandates.
2. Second, this regulatory squeeze will prevent our citizens from enjoying the fruits of the AI revolution and undercut our nation’s efforts to stay ahead of China in the race for global AI supremacy.
3. Third, Congress should take steps to address both matters, and on the specific problem of state overreach, it should protect the development of a robustly innovative market of interstate algorithmic commerce and speech by imposing a learning period moratorium on excessive AI regulation.

Key Takeaway: Many congressional lawmakers are increasingly concerned about AI regulatory threats from above (Europe) and below (state and local governments). Congress is currently considering a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation as part of the pending budget bill, and it continues to be the subject of intense debate although there are many misperceptions about its scope.

June 5 Hearing: “The Federal Government in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”

Committee: House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Focus: The Committee noted that the goal of the hearing was to explore “the urgent need for the federal government to adopt artificial intelligence responsibly to enhance efficiency, improve public services, and reduce costs for taxpayers.”

My Message: My testimony focused on three points:

1. First, there are meaningful benefits to governmental use of AI technologies.
2. Second, Congress and the Trump administration need to take steps to unlock those benefits by accelerating the modernization of government systems and policies.
3. Third, we must appreciate the connection between broader AI regulation and the benefits the government itself can accrue from these systems.

I noted in my remarks that while both the Biden and Trump administrations had taken some important steps to make government agencies more AI-ready, progress on this front needs to accelerate. Importantly, Trump recently signed a major executive order that led to detailed guidance from the Office of Management and Budget requiring agencies to “adopt a forward-leaning and pro-innovation approach that takes advantage of this technology to help shape the future of government operations.” I argued that Congress should facilitate this effort through closer oversight of agency modernization and digitization efforts and by providing the necessary funding to get the job done.

Key Takeaway: Oversight Committee members and other federal lawmakers, including members of last year’s Bipartisan House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, have stressed the need for the government to accelerate modernization efforts for information technology systems. While Congress wonders whether federal agencies are taking full advantage of new AI tools to carry out their missions and better serve the public, other lawmakers are concerned about potentially problematic government AI uses, specifically on privacy and security grounds.

Conclusion

Building on the insights gathered from these and other recent hearings, a follow-up R Street analysis will discuss how the AI policy debate has evolved over the past two years and where things might be heading next in Congress.