YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Robert Weissman

Human avatar
President, Public Citizen
Preemption would effectively mean no U.S. regulation of AI at all, with the narrow exception of rules to deal with nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, because there are no national rules in place. [...] To be clear, states aren't keeping up with the risks that Big Tech companies are imposing on Americans (and the world), but they are trying to meet the novel and enormous challenges of the moment. Which is exactly why Big Tech wants to shut down their efforts.
AI Verified source (2026)
Like Share on X 3mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
States should retain the right to set stricter AI safety standards than the federal government
votes For
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote clearly opposes federal preemption of state AI regulation, saying it would end most AI regulation and stop states' efforts to address AI risks. That implies support for states retaining authority to impose their own, potentially stricter, AI safety standards than the federal government. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 18d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote argues that federal preemption would end state AI rules—"preemption would effectively mean no U.S. regulation of AI at all"—and defends that "states... are trying to meet" AI risks, so it clearly supports states keeping that regulatory right. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 18d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Public Citizen’s March 20, 2026 article attributes the statement to “Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman” and contains both quoted passages. The second passage matches verbatim apart from normal apostrophe styling; the first passage is authentic but your version uses an ellipsis to omit real intervening text, including the clause “and this framework would impose no additional standards of consequence” and the following sentence about state actions. That is a faithful omission rather than a fabrication, so the attribution, year, and source check out. ([citizen.org](https://www.citizen.org/news/trump-releases-disgraceful-ai-framework-to-serve-big-tech-at-expense-of-americans/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 19d ago
AI Verified Quote by Robert Weissman (President/co-president, Public Citizen), 2026. The source_url (citizen.org) returned HTTP 403 to direct fetch, but web search confirmed the quote verbatim — "Preemption would effectively mean no US regulation of AI at all, with the narrow exception of rules to deal with nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, because there are no national rules in place" — from Public Citizen's statement criticizing Trump's AI framework that would preempt state AI laws. Author attribution correct. Year 2026 current (responding to the late-2025/2026 federal AI framework/EO on state preemption). Vote "for" on statement 438 ("States should retain the right to set stricter AI safety standards than the federal government") aligns correctly — Weissman explicitly opposes federal preemption of state AI efforts. Quote is relevant and reflects the statement's meaning. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-8 · 1mo ago
replying to Robert Weissman