Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Large bipartisan majorities favor government regulation of AI

US Capital with tech background
Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Kull is program director of the Program for Public Consultation. Lewitus is a research analyst at Voice of the People. Thomas is vice president of Voice of the People and director of Voice of the People Action.

As the House of Representatives’ new Task Force on Artificial Intelligence considers how the government should address AI issues, such as election-related deepfakes and bias in algorithms, a new survey finds very large bipartisan majorities favor giving the federal government broad powers to regulate AI.

They endorse seven proposals currently under consideration in Congress and the executive branch for regulating AI-generated deepfakes and AI making decisions with the potential for harm. Voters also favor international treaties prohibiting AI-controlled weapons and establishing an international agency to regulate large-scale AI projects.


The survey was conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. To ensure that respondents fully understood issues around AI, as in all public consultation surveys, respondents were provided in-depth briefings and arguments for and against each proposal, reviewed by experts on each side of the debates.

Creating new laws for AI-generated deepfakes registered overwhelming bipartisan support. Advancements in AI have led to the ability to easily create hyper-realistic images, video and audio. All three proposals surveyed garnered the support of over eight in 10 Republicans and Democrats. They would:

  • Prohibit the use of deepfakes in political campaign advertisements, such as to depict an opponent saying something they did not, or to depict an event that did not occur, as proposed by the Federal Election Commission (national 84 percent, Republicans 83 percent, Democrats 86 percent).
  • Prohibit the public distribution of any pornographic deepfake that was made without the consent of the person being depicted, as proposed in the Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act and DEFIANCE Act. (National 86 percent, Republicans 85 percent, Democrats 87 percent)
  • Require that all deepfakes which are shared publicly be clearly labeled as such, as proposed in the AI Labeling Act, AI Disclosure Act, and DEEPFAKES Accountability Act. (National 83 percent, Republicans 83 percent, Democrats 85 percent)

Large bipartisan majorities also favor three proposals for closely regulating AI programs that make decisions which can significantly impact people’s lives, including in healthcare, banking, hiring, criminal justice, and welfare, in a similar manner to the way the FDA regulates drugs. There is evidence that some of these programs have violated regulations, shown bias (e.g. by race, gender, age, etc.) and caused material harm to individuals.

More than seven-in-ten voters favor proposals that would:

  • Require these AI programs pass a test before they can be put into use, which would evaluate whether they may violate regulations, make biased decisions, or have security vulnerabilities. (National 81 percent, Republicans 76 percent, Democrats 88 percent)
  • Allow the government to audit programs that are in use, and require the AI company to fix any problems that are found (national 77 percent, Republicans 74 percent, Democrats 82 percent).
  • Require AI companies to disclose information to the government about how the decision-making AI was trained, if requested, to aid with pre-testing and audits (national 72 percent, Republicans 67 percent, Democrats 81 percent).

These proposals come from the Algorithmic Accountability Act, and mirror regulations in the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act.

Creating a new federal agency for AI to enforce regulations, oversee development and provide guidance on policy is supported by 74 percent (Republicans 68 percent, Democrats 81 percent). This proposal is based on the Digital Platforms Commission Act.

In the international realm, Americans also support the creation of an international regulatory agency for large-scale AI, modeled after the International Atomic Energy Agency, as proposed by OpenAI, New York University professor Gary Marcus, and U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres. A large bipartisan majority (77 percent) favors the creation of such an international agency that would develop standards for large-scale AI and have the authority to monitor and inspect whether their standards are being met (Republicans 71 percent, Democrats 84 percent).

Also in the international realm, Americans support creating a treaty to prohibit the development of weapons that can use AI to fire on targets without human control – called lethal autonomous weapons – as has been called for by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. A large bipartisan majority (81 percent) favors the U.S. actively working to establish such a treaty, and creating an international agency to enforce that prohibition (Republicans 77 percent, Democrats 85 percent).

Clearly Americans are seriously concerned about the current and potential harms from AI. Large majorities of Republicans as well as Democrats favor creating robust federal and international agencies to regulate AI and protect people from deepfakes, biased decision-making, and other potential harms from AI.

When respondents evaluated arguments for and against each of the above proposals, the arguments in favor of regulations were found convincing by larger majorities of both Republicans and Democrats. However, majorities also found many of the arguments against convincing, including: regulation will stifle innovation; prohibitions violate the freedom of expression; and international agencies may abuse their power.

Americans are wary of government regulation, but they are clearly more wary of the unconstrained development and use of AI.

The survey was fielded online February 16-23, 2024 with a representative non-probability sample of 3,610 registered voters provided by Precision Sample from its larger online panel. The confidence interval varies from +/- 1.4 to 1.8 percent.

Read the full report and the questionnaire.

Read More

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less