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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less